The Best Army in the World

Rokondo · Post by **Rokondo** » Sun Jul 07, 2002 3:28 pm

1 Israel -2002
2 British - 45-90
3 USA - 45-2002
4 Germany 39-42
6 Russia 45-90
7 France 60-90
8 Japan 38-44
9 China - I think in the future

Ivan · Post by **Ivan** » Sun Jul 07, 2002 7:31 pm

yes, israel....

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 12:14 am

Isreal? If you are US backed how hard is it to beat some old Soviet armed armies?

Ivan · Post by **Ivan** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 5:54 am

U.S backed materially sure...But still...Being attacked several times and whooping major ***...Thats one heck of an achievment

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 6:08 am

I really saying you're not going to lose if the US is on your side.

G_X · Post by **G_X** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:31 am

You're wrong Hades, American backed countries can lose. South Vietnam no longer exists to prove that.

Not to be mean, but the Soviets had it right, yes I am a little biased, but the point remains that America's first true modern war was Vietnam, which was lost. If you look at just how close America really came to winning, you would want to know how we lost it.

America has problems because of the way it is, these are not just problems, but also the blessings that make america what it is, that's the Freedom of Speech and Government by the people. Most people during Veitnam era however were too ignorant about the war in Vietnam to know that if they stopped shouting and complaining because of the Draft, and most of them were using school as an excuse to not be drafted might I add, they might have realized that Vietnam was not just winnable, but that victory was within reach, imagine if the US started getting more recruits who were willing to serve, Army morale would have jumped immediatly, and happy troops are better troops.

Not to say the USSR didn't do the EXACT SAME THING later on, in Afghanistan, trying to beat a guerilla force on it's home turf using conventional methods.

But on another point, the all time greatest army? Hmm, depends on Era, I'd have to agree, Macedonians, then Romans, (When you think about it, they were as well organized as most of today's armies are, with their own civil and martial engineering corps, these guys were not just soldiers but they built all the roads in the Empire), Then the Mongols, Dark Ages are kinda hard to prove, so much petty fighting, no one country had a true army, but I'd have to say the Church, Further on, Probably my vote goes to Great Britain, then it shifts, alot of places were good, none too great...Starting in late 1800's I'd say the Prussians, they were disciplined, taught honor, and well equipped and trained. As of WWI, probably still Prussia, after WWI, Easily America, right before WWII, A toss up between Germany and USSR, Germany because of tactics and know how, USSR because of it's resources.

During WWII, for the early part, the German Army outclassed almost everyone, then at the end I have to say that while the American's showed great ingenuity, the brits had great spies, and the Germans still were holding their own...I'd have to say the best army at that point was the USSR, Stalingrad basically proves my point.

One factor alot of you are totally disregarding is the fact that sometimes Manpower is a use in itself, if you can throw 3 guys at a MG nest, and then have the 4th guy with a gun shoot the guy with the MG in the nest, then those first 3 didn't die in vain. Also, USSR's tank corps was amazing, rather brilliant, fending off Panzers that usually outclassed them.

After WWII, during Korea...probably USA, USSR caught up after a while and they balanced out, basically equal, and striving for that equilibrium. Up to Modern Day I'd have to say that US Army, while an effecient fighting force is not the best. Might I add to the Aussie that the SAS is a specialist in what it does, while the Rangers are Recon and Airborne specialists, and are simply elite troops, and that if they wanted a real match for the SAS they should try picking on some Marine Recon boys

, IDF is very impressive, it lacks true numerical advantages, and while it's equipment lately has outclassed it's neighbors, it was not always so. The IAF is simply astounding, I wish we could send every pilot we have to spend a year learning to fly the way the IAF do.

If you want to get into sheer numbers, then there's no doubt that China can hold it's own, something like 2 million plus men in it's army?

I guess my vote gets to be assigned to...This really is a tough one, but the German Federal Army also comes to mind, and I'm biased in that direction too. I suppose if I had to pick a single fighting force, it'd be the U.S. Marines, because of their ability to attack with Fixed-Wing Aircraft, Helicopters, and Ground troops in a trully effective fashion.

SEALs could kick the Army's *** any day of the week too

So...I really don't think there is a true Best Army of All Time, since as someone said, a Platoon of Infantry from almost any country (Hell if you gave them enough ammo the Somali's could even do it.) could fend off an attack from Spartans, Romans, or Mongols

Egads, I forgot ole Boney.

Napolean's army definitly had some spunk, and alot of tactical talent, not just Boney's own.

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:10 am

South Vietnam didn't lose the war we did. A country that has the US' support(not through direct military support) will always win. Why Taiwan still there? Because China knows what will happen if they even think of attacking it. Right all Bush has to do is say terrorists and most people will jump at the chance to kill some. So its the threat of the US fighting that wins not the US fighting.

G_X · Post by **G_X** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 5:31 am

We didn't lose Vietnam, we withdrew some short amount of time before the war ended :rolleyes: Also, Vietnam wasn't ours to lose, it was the South Vietnamese, who were a corrupt and barely democratic regime, so really, was it a big loss? And what you're talking about IS the same thing I'm talking about, Taiwan is there because it's not worth China losing alot of men fighting the US just to get control of one rather small island.

Israel has never had active US Intervention in any of it's wars, Taiwan would.

Israel is simply sold equipment at discount rates, using the money american aid gives them :rolleyes: The Israelis then train and learn to use this equipment we basically give them, and it's more their training and leadership that would bring them victory in a major conflict.

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 6:21 am

I don't want to get started on Vietnam so lets say we were both right in our own respects. I pointed out a something and you responed. Fair enough?

G_X · Post by **G_X** » Tue Jul 09, 2002 10:11 pm

Fair 'nuff for me

screamer · Post by **screamer** » Wed Jul 10, 2002 12:57 pm

about vietnam
more then 60.000dead and no gains?? i call that a [political] loss

G_X · Post by **G_X** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:04 am

I didn't think 60,000 Americans died in Vietnam.

Thought the numbers was 58,000.

Has it changed or was I misinformed? Also, there were several large gains, the North Vietnamese were nearly beaten twice. If they hadn't violated the peace treaty and gone on to attack South Vietnam anyways it would have been a victory.

It was also a learning experience for American commanders. Even though it was a brutally unforgiving lesson.

screamer · Post by **screamer** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:08 am

well germany had several large gains versus russia , like kiev .

the conflict probably would have dragged on well into thge nineties if the US would have backt south vietnam in,i beleve 1975.

G_X · Post by **G_X** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 2:15 am

I doubt it...no offense but honestly, If America had not had the problems (caused by people like Jane Fonda) back home, and had stayed committed, North Vietnam would probably be the one that didn't exist any more, There were 3 points in the war where North Vietnam came within inches of collapse. By the end of the war, The NVA was almost non-existant, and the VC were mostly dead.

What was left of the NVA however was much better trained then the South Vietnamese, who simply ran away whenever anything bad happened.

I don't think it would have lasted at all if America had given South Vietnam the same support it would give..oh..say...Kuwait, then We would probably still have a Divided Vietnam. Or perhaps even a United Democracy over there.

I'm not meaning to be rude, but all the facts I've ever seen or read about Vietnam prove my point.

And yes, Germany did have several major victories and gains over the USSR, but that's a totally different topic, seeing as the USSR had dedicated men who were willing to throw the Germans out no matter what, still had massive production facilities that soon came up to speed after being moved across the Urals which was an amazing logistical feat.

Nixuebrig · Post by **Nixuebrig** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:56 am

german army 1990 until now

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Sun Jul 21, 2002 3:21 am

Originally posted by Rokondo
1 Israel -2002

I beg to disagree. The Israeli army is no doubt one of the most powerful forces on the earth, but then again they're not up to much of an opposition. :rolleyes: The Israel Army of '67 is indeed a contender for Best Army prize.

My pick for the best contemporary army is - the U.S. army. With that amount of money spent anything that a #1 spot would be a failure. (the U.S. spend more money on it's forces than nations 2-10 do *combined*)

G_X · Post by **G_X** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 3:08 am

Belisarius, sadly, it's still not enough, some parts of the military are under-funded, while frivolous things get over-funded. the $400 toilet seats in the Pentagon comes to mind.

The US Army may be the biggest in spending, but that doesn't make them the best (Just cause it costs more doesn't make it better.)

The F-22's cost is one of the main reasons hindering it from replacing the F-15's and F-16's in service with the Air Force today. But considering the fact that an F-22 could replace about 10 F-16's, their cost seems Justified, doesn't it? Better equipment replacing older equipment allowing fewer men to do more. I could have sworn that was what Modern Technology was about.

Nixuebrig · Post by **Nixuebrig** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 5:24 am

Originally posted by G_X
? Better equipment replacing older equipment allowing fewer men to do more. I could have sworn that was what Modern Technology was about.

Guess that is called politics, the fewer men just refuse to be replaced by technic. And a larger number of men and planes is more impressing han a smaller number, also it is better equipped.

Just try to tell someone why the budget remanes on the same level or even goes up, when there are fewer men. We do know, but the avarage men(or the avarage politician) doesn`t know, they just look at the total figures.

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Jul 22, 2002 4:32 pm

For one thing, I can imagine having all those nice gadgets of wizardry (ie F-22, B-2 etc) doing more with fewer men, would require a lot more maintenance? That ought to be expensive..

Btw, I heard some loon in D.C. wants to scrap the MBT's in lieu of 8-wheelers?

The Best Army in the World

The Best Armies of the world Today.

Re: The Best Armies of the world Today.