What is the 3rd best military ??

I was in complete agreement with your second last post, but I had UPS problems and lost my link just before I tried to post said agreement.

WFP is the World Food Program and that is what is feeding North Korea. As for artillery, how much of that is fixed and how much is mobile? You don't seriously believe the US hasn't plotted it and has counter-battery radar, arty and rockets waiting, or even pre-tasked air missions?

If you had footage of the Mongols it would be twentieth century, ergo of some relevance.

Fine, I'll follow the link. I'll U2U instead of this stuff.

As for the original premise.

My original assessments still stand. For all the reasons that have been explored here.

Largest or most powerful militaries do not make the world's best.

If it did then the Red Army and its Warsaw Pact allies were the world's best military for 40 years.

The fallaciousness of that assessment was shown in Afghanistan (in the 80s) and is being shown now in Iraq and Chechnya.

To be the best you have to be the most effective. And the US are not. By the same token the next two massive/hi-tech armies, Russia and China do not enter the pcture either. Indonesia has a million men under arms, no-one rates them.
Israel is a nation smaller than the size of the state of Victoria, everyone rates them.

Originally posted by AtheiX
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.

Oh, please do display it. I'm interested in what your knowledge is. Well, I don't hate the Germans as they do Poles but I'm of an opinion that their history education is not of a high level...
Poland sucks today but it was a huge military power in the past. Unfortnately, it's yore now. What's left of those times of glory is national pride and tradition (and great stubborness in fighting invaders).


Don't insult the Poles about their tradition, especially military tradition. It's a sensitive topic. (national pride here, though I must admit that thinking it could be among the 10 best militaries would be naive)

AND polish military has GROM which is as good as the SAS or Delta

You know for 3rd best military I would have to say france....they have 91 ships compared to the UK's 84....and they have more nukes than us which is quite shocking but heh.
Mind you most country's have more nukes than us....ISREAL has more nukes than us....I found that a shocker as well..

They also have a bigger army since we have 103.78 thousand men and women and the french army of 138 thousand men and women..

I dont know about airforce wise though...

^ Who is "us"? Germany???

hey guys..check this out i was shocked..good facts aswell

top 4 militarys!!

.peace.

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
^ Who is "us"? Germany???

Look at my location......

Originally posted by jinj
hey guys..check this out i was shocked..good facts aswell

top 4 militarys!!

.peace.

Yuo'd better change that avaatar of yours.. Its like one of those "seizure-inducing" flashing light type japanese cartoons...

That list is bogus w/o France...And its made by some Jonathan dude with no credentials whatsoever..


[edit on 5-8-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by jinj
hey guys..check this out i was shocked..good facts aswell

top 4 militarys!!

.peace.

that is wrong. if you want me to explain why just ask.

someone posted the same thing in some other thread

^ do you deny many of china's military is outdated and do you deny that many of Russia's military is not in use?

Originally posted by Johnny
I'm of an opinion that their history education is not of a high level...

But I know a lot about history.

Originally posted by Johnny
Poland sucks today but it was a huge military power in the past.

They were NEVER a military power. NEVER. There is no war in their history that has shown that they would be a military power.

Originally posted by Johnny
Unfortnately, it's yore now. What's left of those times of glory is national pride and tradition

There are no times of glory (with the exception of a period in the Middle Ages).

Originally posted by Johnny
(and great stubborness in fighting invaders).

Great stubborness in fighting invaders? Do you have any idea what country we are talking about? Poland surrendered to the 3 partition powers in the 18th century without almost any fighting (almost, because there were a few minor exceptions). THEY THEMSELVES allowed the first and the second partition treaty (allowing the partition powers to take over a part of their territory). After the partitions, they started 4 insurections, each of which failed.

Originally posted by Johnny
Don't insult the Poles about their tradition, especially military tradition.

I'm not insulting them, I'm pointing out facts. They don't have a glorious military history - that is a FACT.

Originally posted by Johnny
AND polish military has GROM which is as good as the SAS or Delta

Our German GSG9 is as good as SAS or Delta as well.

[edit on 6-8-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 6-8-2005 by AtheiX]

Originally posted by AtheiX
But I know a lot about history.

Propably not from school.

Originally posted by AtheiX
They were NEVER a military power. NEVER. There is no war in their history that has shown that they would be a military power.

After the WWII? We were the 4th most powerful nation (not country unfortunately). we had 600000 enlisted men fighting on all fronts, among the Allies.

And what will you call the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

The Commonwealth was one of the largest and most populous states in Europe and for over two centuries successfully withstood wars with the Teutonic Order, the Mongols, the Russians, the Ottomans, and Sweden.

WOW! Wasn't that a real military power?

Originally posted by AtheiX
There are no times of glory (with the exception of a period in the Middle Ages).

Oh really? But we still fought! Yet still... The Monte Cassino battle... Isn't that a glorious victory?
Battle of Vienna in 1683: You call these the Middle Ages?

Originally posted by AtheiX
Great stubborness in fighting invaders? Do you have any idea what country we are talking about?

I'll tell you.
Great stubborness in fighting invaders, a FEW examples:
Haven't we stopped the communist expansion in 192*?
We have taken over Kiev because Russians didn't allow the Ukrainians to create their own republic. The Russians attacked us then. We were alone in this battle, had no alliance. The west was afraid that their colonies would be taken over by Russia. We lost 3/4 of our teritories. But we fought back and won with an army two times larger in numbers than ours.

The Kircholm battle (with the Swedens, they were an EMPIRE then) of 1605? (info fromWikipedia)
Strength:
Poland:
1,300 infantry 2,500 cavalry 5 guns
Sweden:
11,000 infantry 3,000 cavalry 11 guns
Casualties:
Poland:
100 dead 200 wounded Those killed had to be extremely unlucky!
Sweden:
9,500 dead

Our conflicts with Sweden lasted over 60 years. And they kept attacking us. No wonder that in the end of those wars we were shattered. The next 200 years we were constantly fighting. Nothing was left of the military power we had in the past.

Originally posted by AtheiX
Poland surrendered to the 3 partition powers in the 18th century without almost any fighting (almost, because there were a few minor exceptions). THEY THEMSELVES allowed the first and the second partition treaty (allowing the partition powers to take over a part of their territory).

NO! It were the polititians who sold our country to the opressor. If your king/emperor was a lover of Katherine the IInd, you would get partitioned in no time. We are a great nation but our leaders are always irresponsible.

After the partitions, they started 4 insurections, each of which failed.

Insurrections against countries which were empires. I didn't mean we were victorious in fighting the opressors. So we were stubborn while other nations weren't so determined to regain their freedom.

And weren't we stubborn when the Nazis attacked us in 1939? Then we were even weaker than today. The Nazis were preparing for war, they were the most powerful country. We had NO CHANCE of defending ourselves from the Ribentropp-Molotov pact countries! Yet it took the Germans and Russians over one month to defeat us and the partizans still fought them for years.

I'm pointing out facts. They don't have a glorious military history - that is a FACT.

You don't know the facts. I have pointed actual ones above.
AND
You're talking about glory? At least Poles haven't followed a MADMAN and have never attacked a weaker country.

Our German GSG9 is as good as SAS or Delta as well.

You may know a little about history but you don't know nothing about special forces.
1. GSG9 is not a military unit. Don't compare a Border Police unit working inside the country with units trained for military operations. (But as a hostage rescue team they are the best)
2. When GROM, SAS and Delta fight in Iraq the GSG9 take part in the SWAT match. No comments.




[edit on 6-8-2005 by Johnny]

GSG9 and the SAS are both CT units.

Originally posted by Johnny
After the WWII? We were the 4th most powerful nation (not country unfortunately). we had 600000 enlisted men fighting on all fronts, among the Allies.

600,000 enlisted men? Surely not true. Even your Polish history book speaks of in total (as far as I remember) no more than 250,000 enlisted men.
And NO, you were not the 4th most powerful nation. The most powerful nation were: US, USSR, GB, the 3rd Reich (which had control over all invaded countries until the Allies attacked) and maybe France. You Poles didn't even recover your liberty, much less be the 4th most powerful nation.
But even if you would be the 4th most powerful nation, you wouldn't be a military power. Being the 4th most powerful nation doesn't mean being a military power, much less a huge military power.

Originally posted by Johnny
And what will you call the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

The Commonwealth was one of the largest and most populous states in Europe and for over two centuries successfully withstood wars with the Teutonic Order, the Mongols, the Russians, the Ottomans, and Sweden.

WOW! Wasn't that a real military power?

A military power? You won the last three wars against the Teutonic order, but you lost against the Turks during war in 1444, and you didn't won any of the two wars with Sweden (one was lost by you and another was tied). There were countries more powerful than you: Germany (split politically), France, and Russia. Let's also say "Imperial GB" as well, to be fair.

Originally posted by Johnny

Oh really? But we still fought! Yet still... The Monte Cassino battle... Isn't that a glorious victory?
Battle of Vienna in 1683: You call these the Middle Ages?

The Monte Cassino battle was one battle. But I know that you participated in the Italian campaign. So what? You didn't win this alone. You also didn't free your country.

Originally posted by Johnny
I'll tell you.
Great stubborness in fighting invaders, a FEW examples:
The Kircholm battle

During that war, you won the fighting, but you didn't take advantage of it, and thus you lost. Sweden were still ruling the Inflants (and the Inflants were what that war was all about).

Originally posted by Johnny
NO! It were the polititians who sold our country to the opressor. If your king/emperor was a lover of Katherine the IInd, you would get partitioned in no time. We are a great nation but our leaders are always irresponsible.

It was your Members of Parliament - authorities authorised to make decisions on behalf of the nation - and they were Poles.
And Russia was not the only partition power, the two other were Prussia and Austria. So no, we wouldn't be partitioned, because it was the leader-provinces of Germany (Austria and Prussia) who were the partition powers together with Russia.

Originally posted by Johnny
So we were stubborn while other nations weren't so determined to regain their freedom.

Because all those insurections failed, and because there was only 4 of them in 123 years, I wouldn't say you were as stubborn as you claim. And don't say that other nations were not as determined as you were. There were insurections in Greece (successful) and Belgium (successful).

Originally posted by Johnny
And weren't we stubborn when the Nazis attacked us in 1939? We had NO CHANCE of defending ourselves from the Ribentropp-Molotov pact countries! Yet it took the Germans and Russians over one month to defeat us

It took ONLY over one month to take over Poland. And don't forget that your country was big at the time. It was a lot of territory to take over.

Originally posted by Johnny
and the partizans still fought them for years.

Without success. The 3rd Reich still was ruling Poland. It also quelled the Warsaw Insurection.

You don't know the facts. I have pointed actual ones above.

No, it is YOU who doesn't know the facts, as you just have shown.

AND
You're talking about glory? At least Poles haven't followed a MADMAN and have never attacked a weaker country.

You have. You attacked Halich Russia in the 14th century, for example.

You may know a little about history

I know a lot about history.

but you don't know nothing about special forces.
2. When GROM, SAS and Delta fight in Iraq the GSG9 take part in the SWAT match. No comments.

And win this SWAT match. No comments.
Why we are not fighting in Iraq does not havy anything to do with how good GSG9 is.



[edit on 6-8-2005 by Johnny]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by AtheiX]

600,000 enlisted men? Surely not true. Even your Polish history book speaks of in total (as far as I remember) no more than 250,000 enlisted men.

250,000 was the number of our forces in 1939. I’m talking about the END of the war, when the “great” Nation, the 3rd Reich was shattered. On the end of WWII, there were 600,000 Poles in formations and armies all over WWII war theatre.

And NO, you were not the 4th most powerful nation. The most powerful nation were: US, USSR, GB, the 3rd Reich and maybe France.

I’ll correct you: Great Britain consists of three nations. The USSR was a federation of countries and nations.

You Poles didn't even recover your liberty, much less be the 4th most powerful nation.

And check the maps after 1945. What do you see east of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik? It’s freed Poland.

But even if you would be the 4th most powerful nation, you wouldn't be a military power. Being the 4th most powerful nation doesn't mean being a military power, much less a huge military power.

We were the 4th most powerful nation, not a country. Every historian will tell you that. Why then not call us a military power?

A military power? You won the last three wars against the Teutonic order, but you lost against the Turks during war in 1444

1444!? The Warna Battle? We were not even defending our own country but were aiding Hungary because we shared our king. Many times we defended Europe against the Turks. We did loose this “war” but not on our own turf.

and you didn't won any of the two wars with Sweden (one was lost by you and another was tied).

What’s a TIE in war? There’s no such thing as a tie, there’s only victory and defeat. If someone takes over our land, we loose. If they can’t take our land, they loose.

There were countries more powerful than you: Germany (split politically), France, and Russia. Let's also say "Imperial GB" as well, to be fair.

We won wars with the Teutonic Order and you still tell me that Germany was more powerful? Is the Prussian Tribute not a confirmation of our nation’s power?
Was Russia really stronger than us? How come we took over Kremlin in the XIVth century when in war with Halich Russia?

The Monte Cassino battle was one battle. But I know that you participated in the Italian campaign. So what? You didn't win this alone.

That’s very kind of you that you took notice of our participation in the Italian Campaign.
I hope you also know of our fighting in Northern Africa, Normandy, the Eastern Front, Holland and the Battle of England.
We fought in almost every front of the 2nd World War, especially in Europe. We won many battles, also alone.
And in the Monte Cassino battle, if it wasn’t for us, the whole operation would have failed and many, many more Allied troops would have died.
Remember, the Allies were not only the US, USSR and UK. These were soldiers of all nations, also occupied ones. By saying that Polish soldiers haven’t taken a significant role in the battles of WWII and haven't achieved glorious victories, you actually insult all nations whose soldiers fought the occupant.

You also didn't free your country

We were not fighting for freedom, we were fighting to defeat the Nazis.

During that war, you won the fighting, but you didn't take advantage of it, and thus you lost. Sweden were still ruling the Inflants (and the Inflants were what that war was all about).

We were defending ourselves, we were not the aggressors. And we managed to defend ourselves, though at the cost of losing Inflants. We would lose if they caused the disappearance of our country.

It was your Members of Parliament - authorities authorised to make decisions on behalf of the nation - and they were Poles.

Yes, the members of the Polish United Worker’s Party and Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands also spoke In the name of the nation.

And Russia was not the only partition power, the two other were Prussia and Austria. So no, we wouldn't be partitioned, because it was the leader-provinces of Germany (Austria and Prussia) who were the partition powers together with Russia.

You are right. It only shows that our country didn’t stand a chance against these three empires. We had no military power then.

Because all those insurections failed, and because there was only 4 of them in 123 years, I wouldn't say you were as stubborn as you claim. And don't say that other nations were not as determined as you were. There were insurections in Greece (successful) and Belgium (successful).

List of Polish Uprisings
It was more than 4 uprisings in those 120 yrs (these are not all), your sources (German history books?) seem to be wrong.
And did the German people try to regain freedom when Napoleon (we also fought on his side because he created the Duchy of Warsaw) captured their territories? Did they start an uprising?

It took ONLY over one month to take over Poland. And don't forget that your country was big at the time. It was a lot of territory to take over.

It took ONLY over one month to take over Poland because it was attacked by two stronger countries (Prussia was german, right?) and by surprise (you were preparing the attack for at least 2 years). Also, were not aided by France and the UK (like they stated they would).
It took 3 weeks to take over France and their territory was equal to ours. And the French had British (and Polish!) aid in fighting only one country, not two.

Without success. The 3rd Reich still was ruling Poland. It also quelled the Warsaw Insurection.

That’s right. Because they had tanks, air support and HMGs. They were well equipped while we had SMGs and pistols (not as much as we would like to have even).
They quelled the uprising but were soon blown away by the Red Army (which did NOTHING to aid their allies, the Warsaw partisans).

No, it is YOU who doesn't know the facts, as you just have shown.

I point out the actual facts and still am confident that they are correct.

You have. You attacked Halich Russia in the 14th century, for example.

Are you comparing the biggest and most brutal conflict in history of humanity with a raid that was a routine in the XIV century?

I know a lot about history.

You really think that you know more about polish history than a Pole?

And win this SWAT match. No comments. Why we are not fighting in Iraq does not havy anything to do with how good GSG9 is.

It has. They have not seen action in years and fight in a match with local police force SWAT units which don’t have the training, the gear and the experience. I call that an absurd, a dishonor for an elite unit they are supposed to be (as I said, they are the BEST in hostage rescue operations but are not trained for missions GROM and the SAS can undertake).



And please answer my entire post, not just what you choose to disagree with.



[edit on 7-8-2005 by Johnny]

I thought GSG9 do training and match's with the SAS and GROM?

Originally posted by devilwasp
I thought GSG9 do training and match's with the SAS and GROM?

GSG9 and the SAS even cooperated in real-life operations.
Still, they are not capable of undertaking missions outside Germany anymore and don't need to be trained to fight in environments and situations the other two units are trained for (operations underwater, on deserts, oil rigs, use of parachutes).

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Johnny]

Originally posted by Johnny
GSG9 and the SAS even cooperated in real-life operations.

Yes I know of this, but I meant training wise..

Still, they are not capable of undertaking missions outside Germany anymore and don't need to be trained to fight in environments and situations the other two units are trained for (operations underwater, on deserts, oil rigs, use of parachutes).

[edit on 7-8-2005 by Johnny]

Actually thats not true.
GSG9 has naval and air detachments.

Originally posted by devilwasp
GSG9 has naval and air detachments.

Cool, thx for the info.

Until there's a terrorist situation in Germany, I guess we'll never find out what their real abilities are.

Originally posted by Johnny

Cool, thx for the info.

Until there's a terrorist situation in Germany, I guess we'll never find out what their real abilities are.

Mabye its best we dont find out...

Originally posted by Johnny
250,000 was the number of our forces in 1939. I’m talking about the END of the war, when the “great” Nation, the 3rd Reich was shattered.

No, I was talking about the END of the war, not the beginning. You didn''t have 600,000 soldiers. The number of 250,000 soldiers was given by a POLISH history book written by Wlodzimierz Medrzecki and Robert Szuchta. Yes, I know Polish language.

Originally posted by Johnny
I’ll correct you: Great Britain consists of three nations. The USSR was a federation of countries and nations.

The British are ONE nation. Ask any Britishman.
As for the USSR, they were not one nation, but their authorities were trying to make them one nation. Besides, the USSR was dominated by Russia (it was just a federation of countries under Russian rule), so we can speak of Russians.

Originally posted by Johnny
And check the maps after 1945. What do you see east of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik? It’s freed Poland.

No, it wasn't freed, it was ruled by the USSR.

Originally posted by Johnny
We were the most powerful nation, not a country.

No, you weren't. The US, the USSR, GB and France are the countries that were more powerful than you.

Originally posted by Johnny
Every historian will tell you that.

No.

Originally posted by Johnny
1444!? The Warna Battle? We were not even defending our own country but were aiding Hungary because we shared our king. Many times we defended Europe against the Turks. We did loose this “war” but not on our own turf.

This was a war, and you lost it. And it doesn't matter if you lose the war on your own territory or not on your own territory, you still lose this war. For example, in 732 the Muslims attacked France and lost. They didn't lose on their own territory, but it doesn't matter. They lost.

Originally posted by Johnny
What’s a TIE in war? There’s no such thing as a tie, there’s only victory and defeat.

A war CAN be tied. In some wars, there are no winners and losers. Some wars have been tied.

Originally posted by Johnny

There were countries more powerful than you: Germany (split politically), France, and Russia. Let's also say "Imperial GB" as well, to be fair.

We won wars with the Teutonic Order and you still tell me that Germany was more powerful?
Is the Prussian Tribute not a confirmation of our nation’s power?

The state of the Teutonic Order was only a part of Germany. You wouldn't win in a war against whole Germany. Don't claim that you defeated Germany when you have only defeated a part of it. You can claim that you won a war, but you cannot claim that you won a war with whole Germany.
Besides, you didn't win all the wars with the Teutonic Knights. You lost the war in 1308-1309 and the war in 1329-1332. But because during each of those two wars you lost only a part of your territory, let's count these two wars as a tie, to be fair.

Originally posted by Johnny
Was Russia really stronger than us? How come we took over Kremlin in the XIVth century

You didn't take over the Cremlin. That is, not permamently. You tried to institute your heir to the throne, Vladislav, the Russian emperor, but you failed to do that, and your another pretended to the throne, Dmitri, was quickly murdered. You failed. You lost that war. (This war with Russia was in the 17th century).

Originally posted by Johnny
We fought in almost every front of the 2nd World War, especially in Europe. We won many battles, also alone.

You won many battles during WWII (in the second period - when the 3rd Reich was losing) but didn't win many alone.

Originally posted by Johnny
By saying that Polish soldiers haven’t taken a significant role in the battles of WWII and haven't achieved glorious victories, you actually insult all nations whose soldiers fought the occupant.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out facts. You didn't play a significant role in WWII - that is a fact. You were defeated many times during WWII. And without you, the Allies would win. You had bad equipment (apart from the equipment you received from the Allies) and you didn't have many soldiers, as I have already said.

Originally posted by Johnny
We were not fighting for freedom, we were fighting to defeat the Nazis.

You were fighting for your freedom (and you failed). And it wasn't you who defeated us, we were still ruling your country (until the USSR took it over) and we still possessed Norway.

Originally posted by Johnny
We were defending ourselves, we were not the aggressors. And we managed to defend ourselves, though at the cost of losing Inflants. We would lose if they caused the disappearance of our country.

Independence of your country was not what that was was going on for! That war was going for Inflants! You lost them. But let's not count it as a loss, to be fair. But we cannot count it as your victory, too.

Originally posted by Johnny
Yes, the members of the Polish United Worker’s Party and Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands also spoke In the name of the nation.

SED didn't speak in the name of the whole German nation, it spoke only on the behalf of the Eastern Germans. There were 2 German countries at the time: west Germany and east Germany.

Originally posted by Johnny
It was more than 4 uprisings in those 120 yrs (these are not all), your sources (German history books?) seem to be wrong.

My sources are not German history books. My sources are Polish history books. They mention only 4 insurections.

Originally posted by Johnny
And did the German people try to regain freedom when Napoleon (we also fought on his side because he created the Duchy of Warsaw) captured their territories? Did they start an uprising?

When Napoleon lost in Russia, Germany betrayed Napoleon. We - together with other nations defeated him during the battle of Leipzig in 1813. Prussia - together with GB - finally defeated Napoleon in 1815.

Originally posted by Johnny
It took ONLY over one month to take over Poland because it was attacked by two stronger countries

But don't forget that your country was big at the time. It was a lot of territory to take over. And we would defeat you even if the USSR didn't help us. We had more men and better equipment.

Originally posted by Johnny
(Prussia was german, right?)

Prussia was German. But during WWII, you were attacked by whole Germany (although ruled by a dictator that today's Germans do not consider good).

Originally posted by Johnny
and by surprise (you were preparing the attack for at least 2 years).

By surprise? You knew we were going to attack you.

Originally posted by Johnny
I point out the actual facts

No. Both of us are saying that to each other and both of us say why.

Originally posted by Johnny

Are you comparing the biggest and most brutal conflict in history of humanity with a raid that was a routine in the XIV century?

No. But you wanted an example, and I have provided one.

Originally posted by Johnny
You really think that you know more about polish history than a Pole?

Belonging to a nation does not mean you know more about the nation's history than a foreigner. However, I'm claiming I know a lot about history, not about Polish history. That is different. History is not only Polish history.

Originally posted by Johnny
It has.

No, it doesn't. Why we are not fighting in Iraq does not havy anything to do with how good GSG9 is. We are not fighting in Iraq because we consider war in Iraq unjust.

Originally posted by Johnny
They have not seen action in years and fight in a match with local police force SWAT units which don’t have the training, the gear and the experience. I call that an absurd, a dishonor for an elite unit they are supposed to be

You are insulting the unit.

Originally posted by Johnny
(as I said, they are the BEST in hostage rescue operations but are not trained for missions GROM and the SAS can undertake).

They can undertake those missions. Devilwasp already told you that.

[edit on 7-8-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by AtheiX]