What is the 3rd best military ??

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As for Poland, they have a great military tradition, but like you have pointed out, I nor anyone else either knows or has posted anything about them. Help us out

Poland has great military tradition? You must be joking. Poland doesn't have a great military tradition. They have a bad military tradition. Don't make me display their military history.

As for their military, it is weak. Few people and bad equipment.




posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
hehe.. where'd you pull this one out of now Atheix
..
the last post was in 2004!!
Polish military..hmmm.. don't know much..
Once had a laugh when I heard the total Latvian mechanised foces consisted of ...umm.. 3 tanks.. nevr confirmed it though..



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Russia, in a word.
Dallas



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I don't know why someone said North Korea, they are hardly a threat. I spent a year in Korea. The North Koreans can barely keep their army fed right. On top of that a lot of north koreans would rather be south koreans and would defect in a war. Also the majority of their equipment is not all that modern.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Maybe the UK... But that's just my opinion...



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Russia, in a word.
Dallas

So what is the second in your opinion, if Russia is the 3rd? China? Israel? India?



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
3rd best military???

Rogue Russian generals.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I would say Israel for 3rd, with Russia or China being 2nd. I haven't heard too many good things about the line equipment for either force, things like russian pilots only getting 20 hours of air time a year lately because of cutbacks in spending, and China seems like it has a bloated military. Israel seems like the most truly militaristic culture today, with combat martial arts (krav maga) being taught in schools, and almost everyone being part of the military or having military experience.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   
True what you say.. but considering total strike force.. Even Pakistan could maybe overwhelm Israel single handedly...
Not sure though



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
I'd say Israel is currently the world's 4th most powerful army. Although several nations deploy much larger armies than Israel, the IDF (specifically, the IAF) is probably one of the most experienced forces in the world today. Almost all Israelis (men and women) undergo a tour of duty in the IDF. Israel maintains an extremely advanced and capable airforce, extremely well-trained and equipped ground forces (Merkava Mk.4), and more than anything else, their population is hardened against war. Having withstood terrorism for decades, the Israeli people know the realities of combat, with the result that they are more than willing to die for their country.

Israel also maintains (though denies the existence of) a significant complement of tactical nuclear weapons, and they possess the capability to project their power throughout the region. No other nation in the Middle East can so effectively go to war than Israel. With an impressive defense industry and the backing of America (with the result that they often end up with our newest toys before we get them...), Israel is a very capable force.

3rd place probably goes to the United Kingdom. The Royal Navy is one of the finest in the world, and their STOVL carriers can project a degree of force around the world. The Royal Navy is also acquiring two true conventional carriers in the next few years, which will give them power projection they haven't had since World War II. The remainders of the British Empire (the Falklands, Diego Garcia, etc.) also give the UK bases around the world, so they have a presence elsewhere than the British Isles. With exceptional special forces and a well-trained (and financed) military (plus nukes!), the UK is a very powerful force.

China has tons of men, but lots of equipment that is terribly maintained and wasn't so great to begin with. China has no hope of invading Taiwan in their current state; unless they want to nuke Taiwan (and they won't, since they want Taiwan for its industry and a radioactive parking-lot doesn't HAVE an industry), they'll need to sealift and airlift forces over, and the capability simply isn't there (yet). Analysts are calling China's invasion plans for Taiwan the "million man swim", since there's no way that the PLAN can carry enough men to successfully establish a beachhead. Add to the fact that the 7th Fleet would probably step in, and China remains an impotent power: they could probably defend their homeland, but they can't project power.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
^^ You seem to be going by one's neighbourhood and one's past experiences..

Let me tell you one thing..actually two:

Both the British and the Israelis have been one of the luckiest wars combatants for the latter half of the prev. century..
Look at Falklands for example..
If you read up on the exact events of the war
(as is done in almost all defence colleges) you may think a little different
Rather than giving the UK credit for their brillinace in winning a war over 15000km away from England, you may want to ridicule Argentina for losing one just 300km of their shores..
Really.. any decent military would've used those very resources MUCH better and to much more effect..
( Hence a tradition in the Staff College in India to always play "Don't cry for me Argentina".. before commencing with this subject every course
)

Not to take anything away from the British.. just that you can't put them above the French..

On the subject of Israel..
Ariel Sharon is a war hero today because of arab/egyptian cowardice...
Had those troops/divisions which he had flanked held ground till reinforcements arrived Israel was a goner.. He never wiped out those divisions.. most of them fled due to low morale..

The arabs had MORE than neutralised the soo called Israeli AF in that war with the SA-6s and ALSO with good pilots brought in from other muslim states
like Pakistan.. PAF pilots managed to shoot down 10-15 IAF(Israeli) jets w/o losing any of their own..

Thats why I'm saying..TODAY put say Pakistan and Israel side by side either in the middleeast or in South Asia.. It will be a tough war to judge the outcome of.. And I myself would put my money on Pakistan if the war were to last more than a week..
Again not to take anything away from Israel... C'mon they're 1/10th the size of Pakistan and probably have a military ratio of of 1:5 or so..



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Piroko
China has tons of men, but lots of equipment that is terribly maintained and wasn't so great to begin with. China has no hope of invading Taiwan in their current state; unless they want to nuke Taiwan (and they won't, since they want Taiwan for its industry and a radioactive parking-lot doesn't HAVE an industry), they'll need to sealift and airlift forces over, and the capability simply isn't there (yet). Analysts are calling China's invasion plans for Taiwan the "million man swim", since there's no way that the PLAN can carry enough men to successfully establish a beachhead. Add to the fact that the 7th Fleet would probably step in, and China remains an impotent power: they could probably defend their homeland, but they can't project power.


What the??

it seems like you pulled the info or your post from the 60s. or some sort of history book.

here is a link t PLAN transports
www.sinodefence.com...

the invasion wouldn't be like D-day more like a ballistic missile strike then followed by air assults and commando raids. blockage of taiwan with ships.

taiwan only has limit amounts of AAM missiles and SAMs. they cant last a protracted war. thats if the US doesn't step in



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
China is the sleeping giant, always has and always will be.


The problem with sleeping giants is that you can cut off their toes before they wake up and then they can't walk. Look at Russia prior to WW1.

As for their reserves...they're armed with Degtyarevs, PPShs, SKKs, SKSs etc. It's a fallacy to think they all carry Type 56s.

India and China have already gone toe to toe, how did that turn out?

Given that we can't agree on who the number 1 military is, how can we choose number three.

If for argument's sake you take the US as the best military, which I do not, then the UK comes second. It's possible Germany comes third in that equation, or France. Israel would definitely come in much higher than either Russia or China and most probably in third place.

Japan can only not act agressively by choice, it's in their constitution, they have the military to do so if they choose.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As for Poland, they have a great military tradition, but like you have pointed out, I nor anyone else either knows or has posted anything about them. Help us out

Poland has great military tradition? You must be joking. Poland doesn't have a great military tradition. They have a bad military tradition. Don't make me display their military history.

As for their military, it is weak. Few people and bad equipment.


In 1921 the Poles defeated the Red Army. You couldn't.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As for Poland, they have a great military tradition, but like you have pointed out, I nor anyone else either knows or has posted anything about them. Help us out

Poland has great military tradition? You must be joking. Poland doesn't have a great military tradition. They have a bad military tradition. Don't make me display their military history.

As for their military, it is weak. Few people and bad equipment.


In 1921 the Poles defeated the Red Army. You couldn't.


It wasn't like that the Red Army defeated Germany but lost against Poland. They had to deal with Poland FIRST before they could march towards Western Europe.
We could have defeated the Red Army in WWII. We would win in WWII if the US didn't get involved.
And we have already defeated Russia earlier. They lost against us in WWI.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

If for argument's sake you take the US as the best military, which I do not, then the UK comes second. It's possible Germany comes third in that equation, or France. Israel would definitely come in much higher than either Russia or China and most probably in third place.

Japan can only not act agressively by choice, it's in their constitution, they have the military to do so if they choose.


I don't get you.. did you read my post above??
Israel's been playing with minnows for all of its existence..
Only Iraq ever came close to making Israel piss in its pants..And by god..If it weren't for the yankee daddies Iraq could've put a dent in Israel..
It along with Iran were the only "capable" nations in the middleeast...The others as I said..minnows..
Even Pakistan would be match for Israel..And you're placing it above Russia/China??
..



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
We could have defeated the Red Army in WWII. We would win in WWII if the US didn't get involved.


To quote Keith Giffen:

Bwahahahahahah!

No matter how you slice it, Germany was kleine weisswurst on toast the moment Hitler turned east. You didn't have the men or the machines.

Even if Paulus and his men hadn't been wasted at Stalingrad you couldn't have done it. Their reserves were twice yours (including allies such as Hungary and Rumania), their industrial production capacity was four times yours and they already had the best tank in the world coming off the production line and into units.

T34 ate PzKpfw III and IV for breakfast.

Both countries had paranoid psychotics at the top but Stalin had a Georgi Zhukov to acheive things and ignore the more insane orders, Hitler had no-one of that capacity.

Plus you couldn't bomb their industry but the Brits and Yanks were hitting yours day and night. Take out the Eigth AF and you're left with Bomber Harris deciding that those 1000 bomber fire raids would be a good thing on every German city, not just Hamburg and Dresden, who needs nukes when that happens? If you can't hit the industry just destroy the cities, the factories will be burned down along with everything else and there will be no-one left alive to work in them anway.

You couldn't divert enough men from France and the Low Countries because SOE was making too many difficulties and then the Italians switched sides, leaving Kesselring to have to take up the position of an occupying force, not an ally.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

I don't get you.. did you read my post above??
Israel's been playing with minnows for all of its existence..
Only Iraq ever came close to making Israel piss in its pants..And by god..If it weren't for the yankee daddies Iraq could've put a dent in Israel..
It along with Iran were the only "capable" nations in the middleeast...The others as I said..minnows..
Even Pakistan would be match for Israel..And you're placing it above Russia/China??
..


I don't follow your logic.

Israel is even smaller than the minnows it has toyed with all its existence. Only Lebanon could be said to be smaller.

Israel didn't piss its pants over Iraq, they destroyed Osirak.

If Iran and Iraq were so capable, why did the I/I war last for so long and cost so many lives to no purpose? Saddam had all the west's toys to play with and yet he couldn't defeat some frontal attacks by infantry? They are standard third-world conscripts with no skill or motivation or back-up. Just look at the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. If Saddam was so good why did he never tangle with the Saudis?

Pakistani AF is better than than Israeli? How much combat experience does PAF have?

Who has Pakistan fought? Aside from India? And how did that go?

My criteria are not who has the best toys, or who has the most men, but who's men are the most effective with their toys?

And on that score Israel definitely ranks above Russia and China. How's Russia doing in Chechnya these days?
Hell, hands up who want the Russians to come riding to the rescue in a hostage situation!
And aside from wasting a million men in North Korea and being bled white to no purpose by the Vietnamese it seems that the PLA can only kill non-violent opponents, such as their "internal security" operations in Tibet and their stellar effort at government-student relations in the square of heavenly peace.

And in their twenty year process of de-colonisation, name a situation where the British went home with their tails between their legs. The only one I can think of that comes close is Cyprus. India/Pak/Bangladesh doesn't count as it wasn't an armed nationalist uprising. The whole point is that it was the opposite.

I didn't see an answer about China/India, I would have expected you to be better informed on that one. I'll admit it has never crossed my reading, I know nothing about it.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

You didn't have the men or the machines.
We had the machines. We lost only because US got involved and because of the winter.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
their industrial production capacity was four times yours
No. We had a stronger economy than they had. We were ahead of them in industrial production capacity since the 19th century.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
and they already had the best tank in the world coming off the production line and into units.
The best tank in the world at that time was the Tiger tank.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
T34 ate PzKpfw III and IV for breakfast.
No, it didn't. For example, at the battle of Balabonovka the German army lost 4 Panther tanks and 1 Tiger tank, while the Soviet army lost 263 tanks.

And I'm not going to further discuss this with you, because you can't admit being wrong when you are.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

You didn't have the men or the machines.
We had the machines. We lost only because US got involved and because of the winter.


pffff.



Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
their industrial production capacity was four times yours


No. We had a stronger economy than they had. We were ahead of them in industrial production capacity since the 19th century.


Yes, in 1914 you were. That was before the Five-Year Plans. The tractor factory in Stalingrad was a battlefield all of its own, do you know how big it was? Go find out and then tell me your production capacity was bigger.



Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
and they already had the best tank in the world coming off the production line and into units.


The best tank in the world at that time was the Tiger tank.


No, it wan't. The best tank in the world was T34. Tiger and Konigstiger entered service after the invasion of the Soviet Union. T-34 was already entering service. The Tiger was never the best tank in the world, it was heavy, slow, unmanouverable, unreliable and drank fuel like Australians drink beer in Munich in September. JS1 could kill it.



Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
T34 ate PzKpfw III and IV for breakfast.
No, it didn't. For example, at the battle of Balabonovka the German army lost 4 Panther tanks and 1 Tiger tank, while the Soviet army lost 263 tanks.


Look at the numbers.

Panther was Panzer Kampfwagen V, it was designed as a result of the rude shock you got when T34 started carving through your ranks, eating tasty meals of Panzer Kampfwagen drie und vier fur fruhstuck. Or should I say: "T34 hast Panzer Kampfwagen drie und vier fur frustuck ge-essen!"? Mein Deutsch ist ein kleine...well, I can't think of the word for rusty. All the Soviets had to do was upgun to 85mm, not design a whole new tank. What model tanks did you destroy so many of in this engagement?

And that's before we even talk about Kursk. Where the Tigers broke down in such numbers they were a hindrance and the Elephant SPG tank destroyers were instead destroyed.



And I'm not going to further discuss this with you, because you can't admit being wrong when you are.


Look in the mirror.





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join