Best Army

Originally posted by Nerdling
The saving grace is the carrier battle groups, without those you'd have no force multipliers.

This is what i was banging on about in the post i made about sunburn missiles, russia could mount these on large fishing boats, nuke tipped they render the carrier battle groups inneffective, unless the american commander is prepared to take the risk and poss loose the carrier group in an operation that could fail (as all could) then in an all out war i don't think carrier groups would be a great threat to the enemy.


Also an the germans found out in WW2 (and then applied to food after WW2), its Quvantity not Quvality that count's

The Israeli army i think is the best even though they have only a small conscript army but they do have the latest technolgy in weapons and are very well trianed.

The British army though i think comes second.

The only reason the US army is sometimes successful is because of its shear size.

Originally posted by Englishman
The Israeli army i think is the best even though they have only a small conscript army but they do have the latest technolgy in weapons and are very well trianed.

The British army though i think comes second.

The only reason the US army is sometimes successful is because of its shear size.

And technology and other things. You know what I mean.

fool...the unbearable winter defeated the goddam German army...The Blitzkrieg tactic didn't work cuz the more army they sent @ 1nce, the more food they need but the winter made the food rot and German army moral decreased.

Another, "huh?"

The Germans were stopped because of sheer numbers, period. Yes, they needed more food, and yes, the winter was unbearable, but that situation was brought about due to the manpower that was pouring into those regions to halt the German advance. The siege at Stalingrad lasted years, not because of winter or food shortages, but because men, women and children poured into there to stop the Germans.

Matched one on one, would have been no match at all....

Besides, near the end of the war, Hitler and the Feldmarschalls were throwing all available manpower into the East, to slow the impending defeat of the Germans by the Russians. The rationale? They would have been rather defeated and dealt with by the Western Allies, than with a vengeful Russia.

if you think the US army is the best, then i think you will have to agree that man for man, the British Army is Better, what we lack in Quantity we MORE than make up for in Quality. Thats why the Brits, the Scots infact along with the marines, were first into Iraq. Our equipment isnt up to the same standard as the US, but we can do an awful lot with it! americans are gung-ho and undisciplined, shoot first ask questions later. how many brits engaged our own allies?

Dude, everybody knows the best army is the KISS Army.

my vote goes to the british army for best trained soilders in the world. We do have possibly the worst equipment modern day (the SA80 is useless) but our troops get the job done.

Look at the falklands. The british army crushed a force alot bigger than itself, and only suffered about 500 men killed to argentena's 2000+

In both world wars, Britan proved itself to be very resilliant (no enemy troop layed foot on mainland Britan) but also to have troops that are very well trained and devoted, shown by the many herioc actions performed by troops all through the both wars.

In both Iraq conflicts, the SAS and SBS were the first men in country, and did severe dmage to Iraq's scud missile and communication networks, damage than helped end the war quickly.

Altogether, i think that the British army has proven itself time and time again to be the best in the world.

Yea quantity/quality I would have to go for British as well (not being biased) but weve had the most experience in wars and seem to be the most effective, the USA wouldnt have gone to Iraq without the UK. Even in Vietnam the SAS were involved that says it all really. One interesting fact that was on Jeremy Clarksons Mean Machines (or whatever it was called) said that Sweden has the most technical advanced Navy in the world and was 4 times bigger than the UK's (apparently they have stealth boats). Don't know if this is reliable but you never know!

This isn't exactly in effect anymore, and I'm not sure about its credence, but Hitler was heard to say

"The best Military force in the world would be composed of German Commanders, American Equipment, and Canadian Soldiers."

We took Vimy in a HALF DAY! But now we're out on our asses..

Reading my history, it seems the best overall winning army (not individual soldiers) is the one with the best logistics to keep their troops supplied with ammo, food and medical treatment. Currently that would be the United States Army.

Reading my history, it seems the best overall winning army (not individual soldiers) is the one with the best logistics to keep their troops supplied with ammo, food and medical treatment. Currently that would be the United States Army.

^ I couldnt disagree more with you... The best army is the most spirited, where each soldier is willing to die for his/her country. Usually armies like that can do wonders with the equipment thats available to them. Even though Im Russian, and I would normally say Russia in response to something like this
Im going to have to say that right now id pick the Israelis, very good troops.

Originally posted by Papz

Reading my history, it seems the best overall winning army (not individual soldiers) is the one with the best logistics to keep their troops supplied with ammo, food and medical treatment. Currently that would be the United States Army.

^ I couldnt disagree more with you... The best army is the most spirited, where each soldier is willing to die for his/her country. Usually armies like that can do wonders with the equipment thats available to them. Even though Im Russian, and I would normally say Russia in response to something like this

Im going to have to say that right now id pick the Israelis, very good troops.

Allthough I do agree morale is is very important, morale is a function of well suported troops. Morale and spirit do not win battles by themselves - witness Japanese or Iranian human wave attacks - they had lots of spirit but not much for brains. ANY army without proper logistics will lose the war even if they win an initial battle - I stand on history!

i am quite positive that not one of you in this forum knows anything about what you are talking about. yes the British army is great and so is the Israeli army, but the country that provides the technoloy is the US. Someone also said that " the British crushed the Falklands suffering only 500 casulaties compared to 2000" or was it using only 500 troops....i dont know but anyway, would someone like to clue me in about the first Gulf war..... not many of you unintelligent 9th graders, (whom most of you are), realize that for the first time in WORLD HISTORY, it was better for a country , i.e. (US and Britain) to be at war than back at home, meaning a solider was less likely to die do to acciendents at home rather than be killed in war. The US is a superpower, there is not way to catagorize it. The power of the US military influnces over a 3rd of the US ecnomy and an enormous chunk of the world economy.
before you people start becoming all "crazed" about certain "conspiracies" you should find out all the facts first, (become a physiscst and join the airforce) becuase sites like this one will drive you crazy.

The Australian SAS had a 500 to 1 kill rate in Vietnam and Australian soldiers have in history consistently won despite over whelming odds eg. Tobruk, Kokoda, Long Tann.

Originally posted by czakky
my vote goes to the british army for best trained soilders in the world. We do have possibly the worst equipment modern day (the SA80 is useless) but our troops get the job done.

I take issue with this statement and wonder whether you can actually come up with supportable examples where British equipment is “possibly the worst” etc…

The oft cited poor reputation of the SA80 of the past was legitimate but led to a number of improvements and a quick search will reveal the SA80 is actually now a reliable weapon.

I think this whole discussion is silly and many armies can have legitimate claim “to be the best” in certain areas.

The criteria that makes an army amongst the best is operational service as this hones command skills, troop competence and military doctrine. This view is supported with the evidence of history where inexperienced armies have been trounced, but once they have gained experience have done the trouncing. British in Burma, US in North Africa etc., etc…

On this basis, there are a handful of armed forces who have been in continuous operational deployments over the last 50-60 years. You can do your own research, but let’s start with the UK, France, US, a few smaller European nations (Netherlands?), Israel etc…

I am also wary of conscript armies, so question whether Israel should be listed. Their combat experience is pretty much two-dimensional in recent times.

Regards