It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top 4 most powerful military's

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Actually why don't we place the(any) two countries in question and run a battle scenario under the judgement of some neutrals.. that would be very informative..
I can judge for any non- India/Pakistan/China conflict..
and I can field India in any conflict..


whole armys or a limited army vs army scenario?

same numbers?




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
3. Russia. large stockpile of soviet weapons. large nuclear arsenal. large army
A large stockpile of soviet weapons and a large army - so what? Their weapons are of low quality. They are useless. They've got a large nuclear arsenal though.


Originally posted by chinawhite
4. South korea-A mini american army. with the economy to back.

Their economy isn't strong now.

Originally posted by chinawhite
5. india- lots of russian equipment large army. one carrier
They have Russian equipment. Russian equipment is useless.

Originally posted by chinawhite
6.Britain. -Very well trained. good quality equipment. large army.
US's, France's, Germany's, South Korea's and Israel's military are as well trained as Great Britain's, and have as good equipment as Great Britain does. Also, Great Britain has a bad military record.

Originally posted by chinawhite
7. pakistan. very large, decent equipment
Decent? They've got Russian equipment, which is useless.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
A large stockpile of soviet weapons and a large army - so what? Their weapons are of low quality. They are useless. They've got a large nuclear arsenal though.



ok a T-80UM or a upgraded T-72 is useless.

a mig-29 or SU-27 series is useless.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
chinawhite please mind your language....there is hardly a thread in which you have not used words begining with a 'f'.....please maintain some sanctity around here




Infact you've used it twice in this thread alone

Its not like the rest of us have a lesser stock of bad words to say to you ... its just that we dont...and that's the difference us and you.




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I mean everything...tactical war theatre...limited is also ok..

And SK doesn't have no economy.. They're running on aid you know.. (post 97')
And you still can't put them above India.. whatever you say..


Russia is still above China.. conventionally of course..

I am willing to represent russia in any imaginary scenario..
1979 is not fwd. chinese acitivity.. Its a bl00dy proxy war which was fought by the north vietnamese.. I'm talking all out war.. like the US in vietnam..they fought proxy wars in other places too(Afghanistan) but that don't count..
The soviets did in afghanistan..and the brits did in the falklands and iraq..


other points:

Pakistan doesn't have decent land equip..It is not russian equipment.. And it has zero ability to maintain a war w/o US life support (greenbacks)..

Russia is very strong conventionally also...VERY STRONG..


[edit on 20-7-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   


AtheiX
US's, France's, Germany's, South Korea's and Israel's military are as well trained as Great Britain's, and have as good equipment as Great Britain does. Also, Great Britain has a bad military record.


Hmm,

I would be interested if you explained that, some what odd comment about Britain's Military Record? I can't seem to find any thing on that OR have heard any thing about this "bad" military record, considering, that British Army is the most respected iby many nations in both combat and in peace keeping duties.

Or could this merely be the disgruted rumblings of some one who is envious of our fine military?

Post some details before you libel a nations military.

- Phil

[edit on 20-7-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk


AtheiX
US's, France's, Germany's, South Korea's and Israel's military are as well trained as Great Britain's, and have as good equipment as Great Britain does. Also, Great Britain has a bad military record.


Hmm,

I would be interested if you explained that, some what odd comment about Britain's Military Record? I can't seem to find any thing on that OR have heard any thing about this "bad" military record,
Look, don't make me display British military history. I will only tell you in short: England (the most important part of GB) was taken over by outside force 4 times (Romans once, Danishmen twice and Normans once). (It was also made depedent on someone else twice (the German emperor once and the Pope once), which does not count to the military record, but is even worse that losing a war). Englad has also lost 3 other wars: war with France in 1214, the Hundred Years War and the War against French Revolution. Given that fact it isn't possible to not say that GB has a bad military record. (I will not even talk about Wales or Scotland, because I was supposed to tell this in short.)

Originally posted by gooseuk
Or could this merely be the disgruted rumblings of some one who is envious
What could I be envious of? I am German. We have a better military than you do.

Originally posted by gooseuk
of our fine military?
Your military - fine? US's, France's, Germany's, South Korea's and Israel's military are better.

Originally posted by gooseuk
Post some details before you libel a nations military.

I'm not libeling your military, I'm just pointing out a fact - you Britishmen have a bad military record.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   
ok russian forces.??

these forces are not front line forces.

and there airforce did have the money to maintain their airforce for the time period 1991-1996 and not to sure if they still do.

these planes are 1980s era Su-27 and mig planes.

also their ground forces lack numbers of the T-90. their helicopters are mil-24s which are relics of the cold war. some of them used in the afgan war.

the russian forces hae never be renowned for their maintaince. and now they have to pay off maintain all this old soviet equipment they have no money to spend on new systems.


pakistani tank numbers.

Type-85 +200
T-80UD 320
Al-Khalid 320

this is a signficant number of tanks. this is no push over.


And SK doesn't have no economy.. They're running on aid you know.. (post 97')
And you still can't put them above India.. whatever you say.


uh??

thats the dumbest thing i ever read. the Asian financial crisis had effected the south korean economy in the first year but bounced back the next year..

south koreas economy is one of the worlds most developed. second largest ship builder. world renowned comapines. and a very high per capita income. 19,000.


you might be thinking of north korea





The Asian financial crisis of 1997-99 exposed longstanding weaknesses in South Korea's development model, including high debt/equity ratios, massive foreign borrowing, and an undisciplined financial sector. Growth plunged to a negative 6.6% in 1998, then strongly recovered to 10.8% in 1999 and 9.2% in 2000. Growth fell back to 3.3% in 2001 because of the slowing global economy, falling exports, and the perception that much-needed corporate and financial reforms had stalled. Led by consumer spending and exports, growth in 2002 was an impressive 6.2%, despite anemic global growth, followed by moderate 2.8% growth in 2003. In 2003 the National Assembly approved legislation reducing the six-day work week to five days.


its slowing down now because of slow world growth


the south korean economy is just as big as indias. dont point to the PPP shiet. if you want a reason why just ask.
www.absoluteastronomy.com...(nominal)2.htm





[edit on 20-7-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Greetings,

I should have known, it was the rambling of a Disgruted foreigner, if I may say, could you feel disgruted over your nations own fate at the hands of the British and a number of other nations that was forced to put the crack pots of Germany back into line, in recent times.

As with every nation, there is the past, and your quite correct in some of the points, If I was to sit here and say Britain has won every war, I would be called a Lair, for the simple fact, she hasn't won every war, nor am I as pretentious as you to say that she has never needed or asked for help, much in the same way of nearly every nation on the planet. As for you grasp on history, I commend you on your research, but the sad fact is that while you quote so well the history you lack the ability to grasp that the british military has changed over the centuries, not to mention that you seem to miss out the great victories in the face of overwelming odds, some being the battle of Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain, over the germans, but sure, like every over crack pot, its easy to point out the negtive in any army or nation, when their bais in some way or form, no matter how much that nations military have accomplished.

As for Germany's "Questionable" Military Record, thats a really interesting cookie, should we start with Germany's recent past, with the Holocaust, that in itself is more that enough for at least a few weeks of dicussion over it, but wait, you might say that it wasn't a military matter, ok, how about the SS rounding up the poles in 1939, or the masacre of Russian women and children in pskov by German Knights, Alexander Nevsky made a rather good film about it, but hey I am sure you know about that, I myself don't know much about German Military "mistakes" outside of this Century, but if you wish to continue your comments, I will be sure to post some "Questionable" incidents that you military has conducted.

As for your list of militaries, yes I agree France have a fine military, with much similarities in Ability with the Royal Navy and Army. Of Course the US I would agree, they have better equipment, I would question their training but nothing else, and South Korea, is still on a War Footing, as you know, they are again in terms of a mini US Army in terms of kit and training, and yes I would agree that the Israel would in my opinion be our equal.

As for libel, if that is your opinion so be it, but if you wish to keep your nationalistic view point on your nation, if you wish I can post some Germanic Mistakes in kind


- Phil

[edit on 20-7-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
could you feel disgruted over your nations own fate at the hands of the British and a number of other nations that was forced to put the crack pots of Germany back into line, in recent times.
Only a few nations. BTW, it wasn't you Britishmen who "put us back into line". Without the US you would lose. But the US helped you. The you took advantage of this fact and participated in the occupation of Germany together with France, the US and the USSR.


Originally posted by gooseuk
As for Germany's "Questionable" Military Record

Our military record isn't questionable. Our military record is good. I'm not saying we are undefeated. No one is undefeated. But we have a good military record.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Only a few nations. BTW, it wasn't you Britishmen who "put us back into line". Without the US you would lose. But the US helped you. The you took advantage of this fact and participated in the occupation of Germany together with France, the US and the USSR.

Our military record isn't questionable. Our military record is good. I'm not saying we are undefeated. No one is undefeated. But we have a good military record.


Funny,

Few corrections, It was british military might that over came the German Airforce, during the Battle of Britain, with some Polish that escaped and some free french. They over came the German Air Force, some thing that the Poles and French didn't manage to do. I have never said that the US did not help, the Canadians, Aussies, French and Russians also helped to get rid of a common evil enemy.

You countries military is still very questionable, when you include the holocaust, if you don't believe that this shows that your military have some considerable question marks, I am of the opinion, you are most likely one of the few Germans that hope the ideals and views of Hitler reappear within your nation.

Do I sense some bitterness that Germany was defeated in World War 2, Britain was one Nation of many that helped break the Germans, Hitler didn't even have the honour or courage to even try and explain his reasons for the murder of millions, he took his life rather than be captured by the "Sub Human" Russians, yeah that was a good leader. I hope you don't still believe in those terms. I see you failed to reply on the events of Germanic Knights in Russia, interesting.

I agree that the british have made some military mistakes in history, but those do not note a poor military record, for when you include some of the achievements in, rather than your negitive bais, you will see that the British have always over come to fight on the side of good.

Should we dicuss the militaries involvement with the holocaust and the Polish Gettos?

- Phil

Just a point, its British, not Britishmen.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Well IMO, man for man the German military was unsurpassed in major land combat last century. They could have come close to winning both world wars, if certain decisions had been taken.

Anyway, in their day the Germans were capable of whipping any country one on one in land warfare. It was only their arrogance and impatience for world domination that led them to overextend themselves too early.

Not that I would have liked to see Hitler winning though.

PS. If Hitler had been fully commmitted to Operation Sea Lion, there is very little the British could have done to prevent occupation. They didn't even have enough modern rifles to arm their regular military let alone the militia's. It was also Hitlers orders to start bombing Brit cities ( after his was angered at the pin prick RAF bombing raid on Berlin ) which allowed the RAF some breathing space. I believe it is widely known that if RAF bases were put under pressure from Luftwaffe attacks for one more week, Fighter Command would have collapsed.

The luck synonymous with war, I guess worked in the Brits favour on that occassion



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk


Funny,

Few corrections, It was british military might that over came the German Airforce, during the Battle of Britain
The British Air Force won, but this was not against the odds. You know how that happened? I'll tell you: most of the planes Luftwaffe had were BOMBERS, while most of the planes GB had were FIGHTERS. British fighters shot down German bombers, because bombers cannot defend themselves against fighters.

However, despite the victory, GB was on the way to losing. But it didn't lose because of the BIG help it received from the US.

Originally posted by gooseuk
You countries military is still very questionable,

Our military record isn't questionable. Our military record is good.

Originally posted by gooseuk
when you include the holocaust, if you don't believe that this shows that your military have some considerable question marks,
That were the crimes of the Wehrmacht. They don't have anything to do with whether Germany is strong or not.

Originally posted by gooseuk
I am of the opinion, you are most likely one of the few Germans that hope the ideals and views of Hitler reappear within your nation.
I'm not saying that Hitler was good. I condemn the crimes his regime committed. Also, I'm thankful to the US for freeing my country from the Nazi rule. For me, your accusations are severely offensive.

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   


The British Air Force won, but this was not against the odds. You know how that happened? I'll tell you: most of the planes Luftwaffe had were BOMBERS, while most of the planes GB had were FIGHTERS. British fighters shot down German bombers, because bombers cannot defend themselves against fighters.


Does this not show the lack of intelligence on behalf of the germans on just how many british fighters there where? It isn't the British's Fault that the Germans didn't use enough fighters, merely our good luck.



However, despite the victory, GB was on the way to losing. But it didn't lose because of the BIG help it received from the US.


Yeah you most likely right, the problem being it didn't turn out like that, did it? If you want to start "What Ifs" I am sure you could turn up with any out come you so wished.



Our military record isn't questionable. Our military record is good.


Again, a military that assists and partakes of mass murder I would have to say puts a smuge on any Militaries Record. So again, its questioable in my opinion.



That were the crimes of the Wehrmacht. They don't have anything to do with whether Germany is strong or not.


We are talking about a nations military record not what if germany is strong or not, I am all for a strong germany, althought I would prefer they didn't try to invade half of europe again. Get back on Track.



I'm not saying that Hitler was good. I condemn the crimes his regime committed. Also, I'm thankful to the US for freeing my country from the Nazi rule. For me, your accusations are severely offensive.


My Comments where based on your lack of understanding of mass murder than your military conducted and your lack of foresight that this would impact on your militaries record. Another Item, the US was not the only nation to free the german people from the crack pot leader.

Do I still sense some bitterness?
- Phil

EDIT:

Sorry Rogue I didn't see your reply untill I had already posted.

I agree that at the start of the land war in europe that the germans where the best in the region, if not the world at that moment in time, with some interesting and creative leaders, rommel being one of them, some thing the British Regiments in the Desert have ever never forgotten. With every thing their down fall was their leadership, their tanks where some of the best created, not to mention their land tactics, with the creation of some of the first CAS units, not to mention parachute units. Yes they would have successfully gained a beachhead if they had managed to control the skys, some thing they never managed to do.

Luck is important in war and your correct in saying that britain had it.


[edit on 20-7-2005 by gooseuk]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Atheix, what do you gain by make them beleave the german forces are strong? Who gives a # about the reputation of a force in the rest of the world?


I mean here in germany its not that popular to show off with german military stuff, even while I do it here sometimes, its in germany pretty unusual, and I think its better this way, its not in germanys interested to be seen as strong, it just would bring disadvantages:

1. allieds would ask for more support, if you think somebody isnt able to support you well, you wont demand him as much for supports as you would do otherwise.

2. other nations arent afraid of us, this causes a better reputation of the german individuals, the nations dont try to someway hold/get us down to protect themselfes, as they dont get to the idea we could cause a danger to them, they trade free with us, we have less danger of terrorattacks.



So give it up, and even if they think the defense forces of Namibia are stronger than ours, its not our problem how strong the others think our military is.



btw. where do you life?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest about the German military; they had their losses and victories like everyone else but I think dredging back several centuries is a tad redundant!

I'm happier to stick to within the last 2 centuries or so when the world we know today was being formed.

I also think the Hitler period was exceptional - after the exceptional WW1 and the later economic collapse - one that could so easily have happened anywhere other than Germany given the conditions of the time, 'we' were as fortunate in this regard as they were unfortunate.
(as one look at the pre-war 'movements' and appreciation for Hitler - Churchill moved to wonder if Britain would be fortunate enough to have 'our' Hitler in time of dire need etc etc shows)


Originally posted by rogue1
If Hitler had been fully commmitted to Operation Sea Lion, there is very little the British could have done to prevent occupation. They didn't even have enough modern rifles to arm their regular military let alone the militia's.


- You pretty much ignoring the entire reason for the BoB.
As the Germans themselves were only too aware without air superiority the Germans could not have invaded as the Royal Navy (unlike the battered British army very much existant, enormous, hugely powerful and at the time absolutely world-leading) would have cut the German attempt to land their armies to pieces.

The Germans knew enough to be terrified of the Royal Navys' 'Home Fleet' and to try to use air power (having first won the BoB) to try to neutralise it if not actually defeat it.

Actually that was what the BoB was all about.


It was also Hitlers orders to start bombing Brit cities ( after his was angered at the pin prick RAF bombing raid on Berlin ) which allowed the RAF some breathing space.


- There is truth in this; but, it is also true that due to flawed intel the Germans thought attacking the cities would draw what they were convinced were the last remnants of the RAF into battle to be slaughtered.

The intel war (which Britain knocked 7 shades out of Germany in) was key and a vital part of the war at this point just as much as it was to be in the 'Battle of the Atlantic' etc etc.


I believe it is widely known that if RAF bases were put under pressure from Luftwaffe attacks for one more week, Fighter Command would have collapsed.


- I very much doubt it. I think people are confusing 2 distinct things when they make these kind of claims.

The operational organisation of Fighter command (ie the rotation system between the various groups) would probably have collapsed but that is a hell of a lot different to saying Fighter Command itself would have 'gone under' in a week and become ineffective.

The Germans utterly failed to detect the frequency British radars were operating on (they thought centimetric - true microwave - radar a technical challenge so great and so expensive to achieve that they thought no-one else could possibly have managed it).
They even sent aircraft including an airship to 'tour' the south coast before the war to find out the frequencies these towers (rather obviously radar equipment) were operating with but could detect nothing (they were looking for the same long-wave 'metric radar' wavelengths they were using......and which, in fairness, we too used initially in the mid 1930's as 'our' radar research began).
They knew the radar sites were there but had no means of telling if they were operating (hence the feeble attacks on them which were not sustained).

Radar meant 'we' would always be able to husband 'our' resources in a way they could not quite fathom. They consistantly over-estimated RAF losses and had no idea of the RAF strength.

To the point where the Luftwaffe, incredibly, actually 'broke', scattered and fled when confronted by the 'big wings' in the last major day-light raid.

(Hence the German comments that the RAF were fortunate to have so many fighters whilst they came with mostly bombers (on wonders what they made of the later allied raids where the ratio was always so heavily 'weighted towards the bomber?).

The truth actually is that German fighter losses alone were as high as the initial RAF fighter numbers!
Britain began with approx 700 fighters - some of which were useless things like the BP Defiant.)


Dowding - approx 700 fighters (at the beginning)


post-war analysis of records has shown that between July and September the RAF lost 1,023 fighter aircraft to all causes, while the Luftwaffe losses stood at 1,887, of which 873 were fighters.

en.wikipedia.org...


The luck synonymous with war, I guess worked in the Brits favour on that occassion


- I won't argue that Britain had 'luck' at times; but far more than that Britain wasn't saddled with a leadership with a political 'creed' (held almost like a religion) that was arrogant and insane enough to be prepared to take on and fight the entire world in the most corrupt and appalling manner possible.

This was the root of much of the help Britain got; Hitler's gang were just so degenerate and twisted that so many were fully prepared to risk and lose their lives, for the benefit others - especially their children.

It was a tragedy for Europe and Germany especially but the 3rd Reich got exactly what it deserved.


[edit on 20-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I’m going o get flamed for this but to the guy who was listing British losses I would add the US War of Independence to that list and the War of 1812.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’m going o get flamed for this but to the guy who was listing British losses I would add the US War of Independence to that list and the War of 1812.


- At which point we Brits can pull the 'standard US Vietnam excuse No. 1' for those losses, those 'wars' weren't actually against the full might of the British army, had they been your (and our, ironically) forebears would have been flattened.

Right?




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- At which point we Brits can pull the 'standard US Vietnam excuse No. 1' for those losses, those 'wars' weren't actually against the full might of the British army, had they been your (and our, ironically) forebears would have been flattened.

Right?



bring the whole entire British military into the colonies. ya Brits would still lost big time. no doubt about it.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan
Atheix, what do you gain by make them beleave the german forces are strong?

Some of them think Germany can't defend itself.


Originally posted by Wodan
I mean here in germany its not that popular to show off with german military stuff, even while I do it here sometimes, its in germany pretty unusual,
I know and I don't do it often. I am only doing it now on ATS.

Originally posted by Wodan
we have less danger of terrorattacks.

Actually I disagree. If terrorists think we are not strong, don't you think they will hit? Don't you think that countries who in their opinion are not strong are in their opinion an easy target? Don't you think that by making the terrorists think we are strong we cause their fear?

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 20-7-2005 by AtheiX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join