best army

Weren't France, Holland and Spain supplying the US ?

As for this topic, it get the 'most pointless thread' ever. Of course, the wealthiest and most militarised country in the world will win hand down. Of course, a 21th century army would trample Ceasar's legions and Genghis Khan's Horse Archers. You seriously don't deserve a cookie for finding that out.

Quote:

---

The Ten Most Powerful Armed Forces on the Planet

---

This is study is quite a joke actually. Ten years ago, France had more nuke than China, Pakistan and India together. And I don't know about India, but from what I saw, Pakistan and China strategy is still based on endless wave of canonfodders, which is something event the french army could handle.

Umm... The german military is quite one of the smallest forces ever these days, compared to its country's size.

And that comparison of the german WW2 army and the Americans these days is bogus.
Do you compare Caesars Legions to the French Foreign Legion? No.

What you CAN compare, are the numbers+average german technology/equipment level these days, and then tell me that the Americans wouldnt be crushed. Actually, I would even believe you, seeing how much you are wasting on these unimportant things...

But WAIT! You can't even compare that, because the german technology level might have been a lot higher or lower, if we either had won, or there wouldn't even have been a war.

Bah, hopeless discussion I agree, but again:

Isn't it "Alea i/jacta est"?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2001rank.html

Those are GDPs.

Anyway, yesdachi, you're wrong about the GDP thing.

Quote:

---

As for this topic, it get the 'most pointless thread' ever. Of course, the wealthiest and most militarised country in the world will win hand down. Of course, a 21th century army would trample Ceasar's legions and Genghis Khan's Horse Archers. You seriously don't deserve a cookie for finding that out.

---

Forget my previous posts and let me add a plus under this.. I'm happy that someone could figure out this thread being pointless.. :bow:

The Chinese Army is the 2nd largest employer in the world, can anyone guess #1 and #3?

Also, that comparison between the US army and the WWII Germans is silly, you don't say "this is the greatest fighting force of all time because it can beat any other one," it's about its relative strength compared to those it competes with. Making such comparisons in the nuclear era is rather difficult though, and also rather pointless. In a large scale war we're all dead anyway. It would pretty cool to see the end of the world though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I'm happy that someone could figure out this thread being pointless.. :bow:

---

Most of the Backroom threads are pointless (but fun).~D


@ Demon Archangel – you are correct. I was thinking GNP. Thanks for keeping me honest:bow:. The page I originally saw the figures on is down but wiki has a chart on it. The numbers are a bit different (maybe a comparison on a different year) but similar.

World's Biggest Employers:

1.) Wal-Mart- 2.4 Million
2.) People's Liberation Army- 2 Million Active Duty
3.) Indian Railways- 1.6 Million

Quote:

---

I did mention that the royal marines are a much smaller group but britain is a much smaller country and has a smaller budget...I expect they also perform different functions but I don't know. Since USMC people seem to be deployed as normal infantary more then the Royal matrines I assumed they were less specialized.

---

And you would be correct. They are better trained and more specialised.

Quote:

---

Also, I think the USMC is about the size of the british army if my memory serves me correctly...

---

Actually I believe its larger or equal to your whole armed forces.

Quote:

---

The British Army is the best for soldier skill, experience, training, et cetera., as well as good technology

---

By that you mean just the Army and not the Royal Marines? Then your wrong. In that case its USMC. Ill put our marines against your regulars anytime.

I believe other than China the only standing army that might beat the Marines is of course the US Army.

Code:

---


China cant beat us they do not have the air force or the navy

---

GC,

Did I disappoint you with these words. Tell me..

Quote:

---

I'll not disappoint any patriots here this time..

USA IS THE BEST USA IS VERY GOOD USA JUST MAKES UP MY DREAMS USA ALL THE WAY HEY HEY I SAVED THE WORLD TODAY !!

---

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

World's Biggest Employers:

1.) Wal-Mart- 2.4 Million
2.) People's Liberation Army- 2 Million Active Duty
3.) Indian Railways- 1.6 Million

---

The Indian Railways are the world's largest employer according to most sources, with the PLA ranking second and the NHS third.

Quote:

---

The reason the US won was we wanted it more. If the brits really wanted to crush us they could have....not any more though. Now we could crush them

---

I spat my tea out all over my monitor when I read this......I havn't had such a good belly laugh for ages. Now this is why I like Americans. They have a fantastic wit and sense of humour. :knuddel:

It is a matter of fact that the best trained, motivated and disciplined armed forces on the planet are British. Not English, British. :2cents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

we have superior navys to everyone and almost complete air superiority (a few give us a run for our money, but i don't know chinas airial situation) and our tanks are only rivaled by the germAns and british. the marines are the best standing infintry in the world and our spec ops are only beaten by GBs and possibly Isreals. so really in war our only problem would be the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, bajjilion screamin chinese.

---

lol good answer.

i'm still in the dark as to how the U.S training compares to britain, cos from wat i know about the British armies training, it is possibly one of the best in the world (i'm not alking about comparing the british army to the USMC, as i know they are some of the best troops anyway)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

By that you mean just the Army and not the Royal Marines? Then your wrong. In that case its USMC. Ill put our marines against your regulars anytime.

---

It would be remarkably interesting and a wholly unique experience to see the Her Majesty's 42nd Regiment of Foot, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) against an equal number of US Marines and see if the Black Watch don't lose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It is a matter of fact that the best trained, motivated and disciplined armed forces on the planet are British. Not English, British.

---

Thank you...

From what I have gathered talking to British soldiers, in joint excercises with the US the UK soldiers normally win.

Then get told off for cheating. Along the lines of "You're not allowed to hide until we have all driven past then claim you have taken the area".

Americans make REAL shitty anti-insurgent forces.

If you need troops that can pull off the perfect tank blitz, crush loads of conventional forces in the shortest period of time, level entire cities etc. you have to call in the Americans.

If you want anti-insurgent work, call in the British.

Quote:

---

It would be remarkably interesting and a wholly unique experience to see the Her Majesty's 42nd Regiment of Foot, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) against an equal number of US Marines and see if the Black Watch don't lose...

---

That it would. But since you picked your army unit can I pick my Marine unit to oppose them? Would you like to put them up against force recon just man to man to no arty or tanks. Just the infantry?

I would put them up against an equal number of infantry marines. Of any unit.

strip them of their helocoptors and tanks and be man for man the british just have superior training and dicipline... but army to army the americans would win

my dad that used to be in the navy said that some american air-craft carriers have so little dicipline that there are rival gangs and gang wars on board ship.. (this is probably an exageration though)
also my step-dad was a tank commander and says that everytime the brits took on the americans in a 'war-game' the brits won ~:cheers: lol

GMM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lazul

Thay ofcourse... they have the Red Wizards man!

... oh wait... in our world?

USA ofcourse... most money = most firepower.

---

Isn't there an elite merc force of 10,000 troops in Forgotten Realms that would beat most other armies in that world. ~D ~:cheers:

Its Britains finest unit.
1ST Transvestite Brigade dazzling the enemy with their pink jump suits and bright makeup. Plus their lead by the ruthless Eddie Izzard!

God's army, their air brigade has flaming swords.

And according to John Milton Jesus rides in a huge chariot and hurls thunder bolts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

That it would. But since you picked your army unit can I pick my Marine unit to oppose them? Would you like to put them up against force recon just man to man to no arty or tanks. Just the infantry?

---

Doesn't that sound a bit silly. My dad is bigger than your dad .... ~;)

Each unit have a specific task and they can never be compared direct.

I would argue that there are today no real occupation force on earth, hence the problem for any attacker to actually keep a war won.

I'll put Gawains Marines against the entire Norwegan army...wait...Norway doesn't have much of an army. Damnit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

I'll put Gawains Marines against the entire Norwegan army...wait...Norway doesn't have much of an army. Damnit.

---

Lol, I'm assume that you're aware that Norway have a draft? ~;p

Although after the fall of SU the budget have decreased, I would guess that Norway could easily get 200.000 men on foot in less then a week if needed, and probably about a million within a few years (that's about 2/9 of the population, that would mean that the US would pull up 65-66 million men).

On average worse training than the US marines, NATO-standard equipment and homefront.

How big is the marines?
This could end up as a very interesting fight.

I was talking to a Royal Marine officer the other day; got round to the US Marines. He said their officers were highly intelligent, competent at what they do etc. but the soldiers themselves were really irritating to work with - as they haven't the faintest idea to think for themselves. He said the USMC was excellent at large-scale operations, blitzing in and breaking everything in sight, but for anything requiring finesse... eh, no.

Side note. Royal Marine Commando = a unit of absolute hard-cases, and they're not even the toughest we have...

Quote:

---

Side note. Royal Marine Commando = a unit of absolute hard-cases, and they're not even the toughest we have...

---

That is so true, they're are like common soldiery...in the RM...all Marines are trained as 'Commando'....the only unit in the British Army to maintain a commando unit in peacetime.

The difference between the UK forces and USA forces always boiled down to brittle morale. When it really comes down to it the USA just can't cut the mustard. Sorry my yank freinds but when it is the real deal...we just handle it better.

The truth will out :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

That is so true, they're are like common soldiery...in the RM...all Marines are trained as 'Commando'....the only unit in the British Army to maintain a commando unit in peacetime.

---

ahem, the Royal Navy... The Commandant-General of Her Majesty's Royal Marines answers to the First Sea Lord and the Admiralty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

ahem, the Royal Navy... The Commandant-General of Her Majesty's Royal Marines answers to the First Sea Lord and the Admiralty

---

They speak funny too. Yomping? Heads? Galley? A wet? What's wrong with tabbing, loos, canteen and a brew?

Have to say though, anyone with a selection of whiskey as good as in their mess I went to, as well as their drinking ability, is deserving of respect. 4th largest collection in the UK, 2nd in Scotland;I had a good night. The next morning though...

Best selection of whiskey... so who was #1 to #3 in the UK... at least this one is quantifiable...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

Have to say though, anyone with a selection of whiskey as good as in their mess I went to, as well as their drinking ability, is deserving of respect. 4th largest collection in the UK, 2nd in Scotland;I had a good night. The next morning though...

---

I might just be compelled to become a Royal Naval Officer instead of a Cavalry Officer now... ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Best selection of whiskey... so who was #1 to #3 in the UK... at least this one is quantifiable...

---

Afraid I don't know. I do know I was drinking 24 year old single malts at 1.50 a shot though.

Royal Marines : 99.99% need not apply. They never mentioned that that was alcohol content too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

I would put them up against an equal number of infantry marines. Of any unit.

---

The USMC has 24 infantry battalions I'm pretty sure that a few of them are capable of defeating The Black Watch.

Also something else you don't realize is that all 24 of the battalions are different from each other. When you consider each battalion has different SOPs, personnel makeup, and different leadership, there are some battalions that are better than others. For instance one battalion may be made up of brand new PVTs and PFCs while another may have a larger proportion of LCPLs who've all served one or two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. The second battalion is obviously going to perform better, but within two years that battalion will be made up of mostly PVTs/PFCs, and the first will contain the larger proportion of LCPLs.

In the end it would come down to which battalion has more experienced and battle hardened personnel at the squad and platoon level.

Dont forget weaponry, the M16 owns the SA80 ~:)

That was true, but as I understand it the new version of the SA80 is a perfectly fine weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercian billman

The USMC has 24 infantry battalions I'm pretty sure that a few of them are capable of defeating The Black Watch.

Also something else you don't realize is that all 24 of the battalions are different from each other. When you consider each battalion has different SOPs, personnel makeup, and different leadership, there are some battalions that are better than others. For instance one battalion may be made up of brand new PVTs and PFCs while another may have a larger proportion of LCPLs who've all served one or two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. The second battalion is obviously going to perform better, but within two years that battalion will be made up of mostly PVTs/PFCs, and the first will contain the larger proportion of LCPLs.

In the end it would come down to which battalion has more experienced and battle hardened personnel at the squad and platoon level.

---

Yes, a few of them together perhaps, but certainly not an equal number. The Regiments of the British Army are all different also. I have no idea what your abbreviations are, but the army regiments here have different backgrounds, traditions, honours, leadership, experience, nationality.

The men of the Black Watch have probably been fighting properly since they were about 10, when they go off into their respective groups and fight each other in substantial fights between the little areas of the city. The soldiers are not only battle-hardened, but have other experience.

Quote:

---

That was true, but as I understand it the new version of the SA80 is a perfectly fine weapon

---

Most of the problems have been solved, apart from the safety catch issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Dont forget weaponry, the M16 owns the SA80 ~:)

---

I'll assume that's in jest.

SA80A2 (which I'll get to play with next year) is remarkably good - doesn't jam, and is really rather accurate (they had to reformat the standard marksmanship tests, cos everyone was doing too well with it. That, and every SA80 in the British army has SUSAT as standard - barring those belonging to tankers etc.). Being shorter than the M16, it's more manoeuverable. Having a bayonet fixture also helps - something the latest M16 model doesn't have - they are still used... to rather good effect, most recently in Iraq - 5 to 1 odds, only 3 injuries...

Only problem is if you're a lefty.

Are you in the Army, Somebody Else?

some thoughts:

Quote:

---

A FIREARMS expert has described as "pathetic" attempts to blame British troops for problems with the Army’s controversial SA80-A2 rifle.

---

Quote:

---

"The SA80 has been beset with problems since its introduction and it’s clear even with the modifications that it is a less than perfect weapon," he said. "The fact that our special forces don’t use it says everything." Mr Yardley accepted that the SA80-A2 was extremely accurate but questioned its design, weight and balance which affected its handling ability.

Terry J Gander, editor of Jane’s Infantry Weapons, wrote on the group’s website that the "old problems" persist.

"It would appear that the only certain way to rectify the ... unreliability situation is to start again," he said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

Yes, a few of them together perhaps, but certainly not an equal number. The Regiments of the British Army are all different also. I have no idea what your abbreviations are, but the army regiments here have different backgrounds, traditions, honours, leadership, experience, nationality.

The men of the Black Watch have probably been fighting properly since they were about 10, when they go off into their respective groups and fight each other in substantial fights between the little areas of the city. The soldiers are not only battle-hardened, but have other experience.

---

Once again it all comes down to the quality of the Marine battalion. It's like comparing football teams, they use the same equipment, receive the same training, and have similar facilities. In the end it all comes down to personnel and leadership, keeping that in mind there are Marine Infantry battalions capable of defeating the Black Watch in equal number.

I'm not sure about fist fights between children, but the fist fights you got into when you were a kid don't mean much when your facing another man with a rifle. I might as well claim Marines are superior because we have martial arts training and we practice with bayonets in bootcamp.

I'm not trying to claim that Marines are superior to the Black Watch, because it's stupid. It's like arguing over SEALs vs SAS vs Spetznaz vs whatever Special Ops unit is better than the other. There really is no right answer because you don't know what would happen, until it actually happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

Are you in the Army, Somebody Else?

---

Nope. Just a glorified cadet. :knight:

Thinking of joining though, but haven't quite worked out what regiment. I'm thinking something interesting - Ghurkas maybe. Possibly a Guards regiment. Perhaps the Light Infantry. Now that I've seen them up close, the Royal Marines might be worth a look - but for their insane fitness etc. That green beret would be very cool though - perhaps army commandos, after all, the marines are part of the navy...

Quote:

---

"The fact that our special forces don’t use it says everything."

---

I believe the only reason special forces don't use it is because it is too heavy for their particular requirements. For the average soldier it is fine (although I imagine a little on the heavier side of things).

Yeah, but Japan's sumo wrestlers would beat your countries sumo wrestlers. Obviously they have a superior army.

Well if you are going to use Sumo wrestlers then the US wins again... as one of the best in recent times was a Hawaiian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

USA all the way NC baby We could destroy everyone~:cool: espesically the marines. Other than the israelis are badass mothas

---

I guess that is the reason why the rest of the world relies trustfully on the American leadership!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

The smallest army is the best army.

The winner is the one who spends the least on its military and more on its social health.

---

:bow: wise words! :bow:

The question was: What is the best, not the biggest or most destructive?

So to me it is clear that the best army is the army that fulfills its job with minimum of resources spend.

So lets see:
The US? Rediculous overscaled. And hardly able to fulfill their job. Still struggling hard in Iraq and still could not catsch B.L.
China: Far to big. At least they fulfill their job: Defending the country and scaring Taiwan.

I really think that Tachikaze is right. Some smaller armies like Switzerland are doing a very good job.

The less you hear about an army in the new the better it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

The less you hear about an army in the new the better it is.

---

I agree on that one.
The Chinese will probably be the strongest in a while. They have the numbers and soon they'll have the technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

I'll assume that's in jest.

SA80A2 (which I'll get to play with next year) is remarkably good - doesn't jam, and is really rather accurate (they had to reformat the standard marksmanship tests, cos everyone was doing too well with it. That, and every SA80 in the British army has SUSAT as standard - barring those belonging to tankers etc.). Being shorter than the M16, it's more manoeuverable. Having a bayonet fixture also helps - something the latest M16 model doesn't have - they are still used... to rather good effect, most recently in Iraq - 5 to 1 odds, only 3 injuries...

Only problem is if you're a lefty.

---

Not quite true, not every weapon has a SUSAT but that is the aspiration.

Also, in reliability the SA80 A2 outperforms the M16A2 by quite a margin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rubbish. It's simply the way the American System works that does not allow the Army do what it does best. You won't see the real potential of the US army unless you look at a real war. As someone above said, Occupation just ain't our forte. You want an example of our being superior? Read up on the first Gulf War. Saddam's army was not exactly considered sub-par until we laid the hurt on 'em.

Yeah, yeah, sure.. that was a coalition. But the air power that opened it, and the tanks that finished it, were american.

---

Oh right, so we didn't have any planes or tanks there then?

Stop being so arrogant.

No-one can deny that the US Army is by the richest and probably the most powerful but that doesn't mean they are the best at all they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Isn't there an elite merc force of 10,000 troops in Forgotten Realms that would beat most other armies in that world. ~D ~:cheers:

---

hmm... nha I stand by my statement that the combined forces of Thay could crush any other faction on Toril. But only if the Red Wizards would stop fighting each other instead of the enemy.
Just remember that Thay has both Aznar Thrull and Szass Tam, hard to beat!

Am I a fantasy nerd... a true geek!?... yes... YES I AM! :charge:

*swosh* back to our world.

Would be intresting to see the US trying to occupy whole of Scandinavia, has to be really god damn anoying landscape to control. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Rubbish. It's simply the way the American System works that does not allow the Army do what it does best. You won't see the real potential of the US army unless you look at a real war. As someone above said, Occupation just ain't our forte. You want an example of our being superior? Read up on the first Gulf War. Saddam's army was not exactly considered sub-par until we laid the hurt on 'em.

Yeah, yeah, sure.. that was a coalition. But the air power that opened it, and the tanks that finished it, were american.

---

If the US army is built for a real war - then they are overscaled. Who is the enemy that scares you so much that you spend all your money on guns. - I think the Americans and their army have so many guns because the Americans love guns. And they feel a lot more safe if they have most of them ~;)
If the purpose of the army is to control conquered - or freed - countries well then it has some problems. Right? But maybe politicians are not good because they give the army a job it cannot fulfil.

Regarding the 1st Gulf war: Excellent job. But did you see the German invasion of France in 1940?~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

If the US army is built for a real war - then they are overscaled. Who is the enemy that scares you so much that you spend all your money on guns. - I think the Americans and their army have so many guns because the Americans love guns. And they feel a lot more safe if they have most of them ~;)
If the purpose of the army is to control conquered - or freed - countries well then it has some problems. Right? But maybe politicians are not good because they give the army a job it cannot fulfil.

Regarding the 1st Gulf war: Excellent job. But did you see the German invasion of France in 1940?~;)

---

So your just jealous is that it? ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mercian billman

...keeping that in mind there are Marine Infantry battalions capable of defeating the Black Watch in equal number.

---

I doubt it

Quote:

---

I'm not sure about fist fights between children, but the fist fights you got into when you were a kid don't mean much when your facing another man with a rifle. I might as well claim Marines are superior because we have martial arts training and we practice with bayonets in bootcamp.

---

Who said anything about fist fights? These are generally knife (pocket, swiss, kitchen, switch, et al.), pole-arm (pipes, cricket bats, and other long and hard things), bottles or ranged weapon (sticks, stones, pellet guns, air rifles, bottles) fights.

Of course I am! I'd like to pay more taxis to see Germans fighting all over the world. Just like my grandfathers did!~D
Joke aside, Germans demonstrated military skills in the last century. I think it was enough to convince everybody that we are the greatest military bullheads in the world for at least another century. ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Joke aside, Germans demonstrated military skills in the last century. I think it was enough to convince everybody that we are the greatest military bullheads in the world for at least another century

---

How by losing both wars? Its the US that has been the greatest military power for the last century not Germany. Our Military has never lost a war on the battlefield. Heck we helped beat you twice already. You would stand almost helpess before us today in a one on one fight.

Quote:

---

I doubt it

---

Well that settles it. You seem to think all Marine battalions are the same and that none are elite. The Black Watch is certainly trained better than the average marine unit but not too all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

Not quite true, not every weapon has a SUSAT but that is the aspiration.

Also, in reliability the SA80 A2 outperforms the M16A2 by quite a margin.

---

Yes but there's one huge problem.

See here: http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/SA80.html

You have to disassemble the entire gun in order to get ejection in different directions.

I know that disassembly in China's Type 95 assault rifles is fairly rapid as shown here (probably because they anticipated the reversal issue): [(No image, stupid copyrights)

However, I don't know how rapidly the SA-80A2 can be diassembled for use. I know it probably has more parts and more moving parts than the Type 95, so it would probably take longer, making it an impossibility in combat conditions.

As I said before, the SA80 is only really problematic if you're a lefty. The way to deal with this in the British army is to... train everyone to shoot right-handed.

Though, I had a guy telling me about how his A1, when he was at his previous post, had had it's cocking handle filed down, and on a piece of string, so that he could pull it out and fire left-handed. Presumably the ejecting cases didn't worry him too much. Of course, he'd have been screwed had his rifle jammed on him - a nice hefty fine or something for damaging his rifle.

The string's kind of like taping magazines together. It's a stopgap measure. And it's kind of difficult to aim with casings smacking you in the face.

As I said, the SOP is to fire right-handed. He clearly decided a few errant casings were worth firing with his familiar hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

However, I don't know how rapidly the SA-80A2 can be diassembled for use. I know it probably has more parts and more moving parts than the Type 95, so it would probably take longer, making it an impossibility in combat conditions.

---

How many people have spontanesouly come to the conclusion in the middle of combat that they are in fact not right handed but instead left handed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

How many people have spontanesouly come to the conclusion in the middle of combat that they are in fact not right handed but instead left handed?

---

At least one: Horatio Nelson. ~:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

I doubt it

---

Obviously your mind was made up before the discussion began.

I checked the Black Watch's website and discovered that it's actually an Armoured Infantry Battalion. Marine Infantry battalions simply do not have the same armor the Black Watch has, unless they've been augmented and even then they wouldn't have the numbers or the power of the Black Watch. Which really makes any comparison unfair, because the Black Watch is not really a infantry battalion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

Who said anything about fist fights? These are generally knife (pocket, swiss, kitchen, switch, et al.), pole-arm (pipes, cricket bats, and other long and hard things), bottles or ranged weapon (sticks, stones, pellet guns, air rifles, bottles) fights.

---

Once again it really doesn't matter. I know plenty of Marines who have gotten into the fights you described and pretty much every infantryman has gotten into a fight of some sort. Barfights, streetfights etc. really don't mean a whole lot and doesn't make someone a better infantryman.

I'll match and raise your USMC with our Royal Marines.

As someone above said, Occupation just ain't our forte.
No point winning the battle if you cannot hold on to the battlefield~;)

I'll match and raise your USMC with our Royal Marines.
Neither is a match for the Irish Rangers , during their last operation they cleared the whole Cooley Peninsula in 3 days without a single casualty , not a single mountian goat escaped their expert snipers during the foot and mouth cull ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

I'll match and raise your USMC with our Royal Marines.

---

Your just a we bit outnumbered and your totally lacking in aircraft . It would be a slaughter and you guys would be the ones on the recieving end. Again generally speaking Royal Marines are more specialised and better trained than your average US Marine. But their aint that many of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

with our Royal Marines.
Neither is a match for the Irish Rangers , during their last operation they cleared the whole Cooley Peninsula in 3 days without a single casualty , not a single mountian goat escaped their expert snipers during the foot and mouth cull ~:cheers:

---

only becuase they were promised beer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How by losing both wars? Its the US that has been the greatest military power for the last century not Germany. Our Military has never lost a war on the battlefield. Heck we helped beat you twice already. You would stand almost helpess before us today in a one on one fight.

---

Just to refresh you on history. When the Europeans invaded the Americas, you got beaten badly, actually you never succeeded to retake any of your soil and today your culture is European. So don't come with any bullshit on how superior Americans are...... ~:joker: ~D

Joke aside, Germans demonstrated military skills in the last century. I think it was enough to convince everybody that we are the greatest military bullheads in the world for at least another century

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

How by losing both wars? Its the US that has been the greatest military power for the last century not Germany. Our Military has never lost a war on the battlefield. Heck we helped beat you twice already. You would stand almost helpess before us today in a one on one fight.

---

Of course we lost both wars. We did not want to dominate other countries, just a fair military competition. When we finally saw that most of our opponents were knocked we stopped the fight.
By the way, the US always waited until the worst fighting was done.

Your military has never lost on the batlle field. ~D I do not want to disturb your national myths. - I know that you are a chess player. So you certainly know those club players who are unbeatable. If they loose, then it is because of bad light, a puff, smoke in the air .... ~;)

Fighting the US military is not on our agenda. This is not an olympic discipline. So why should we prepare to fight the US? Sounds foolish to me. I have no ambitions to have a bigger and more expensive army than the US. This award goes to you ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Yes but there's one huge problem.

See here: http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/SA80.html

You have to disassemble the entire gun in order to get ejection in different directions.

I know that disassembly in China's Type 95 assault rifles is fairly rapid as shown here (probably because they anticipated the reversal issue): [(No image, stupid copyrights)

However, I don't know how rapidly the SA-80A2 can be diassembled for use. I know it probably has more parts and more moving parts than the Type 95, so it would probably take longer, making it an impossibility in combat conditions.

---

It's a right handed weapon, simple as that, anyone who fires it left handed risks blindness and a good kicking from his NCO's.

So, i think we're agreed, the best army cannot be answered with one answer, man to man with equal numbers the U.K would kick tail, groups of men together the U.S would win, closely follwed (and i mean close) by us limeys, in the numbers game, china would win, Special forces???
not sure but i think the isrealis or the U.K might have it there, actual weaponry? again not sure, but i think the U.S.....please coreect me if i'm wrong :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16

So, i think we're agreed, the best army cannot be answered with one answer, man to man with equal numbers the U.K would kick tail, groups of men together the U.S would win, closely follwed (and i mean close) by us limeys, in the numbers game, china would win, Special forces???
not sure but i think the isrealis or the U.K might have it there, actual weaponry? again not sure, but i think the U.S.....please coreect me if i'm wrong :)

---

Sounds about right to me. ~:)

Quote:

---

Just to refresh you on history. When the Europeans invaded the Americas, you got beaten badly, actually you never succeeded to retake any of your soil and today your culture is European

---

You never succeeded in invading the US. We sent your Mercenaries packing along with the british and you never took any land from us. And besides I thought according to Europe we have no culture. Of course jazz, blues and baseball are all european. I forget from what nation they were brought to this soil. America has ts own culture thank you and its a lot different than europes.

Bmolsson was referring to the American Indians... after all the Americans of now are just transplanted Europeans of olde. :bow:

Hows life on the Reservation Gawain ? opened any new Casinos lately~D ~D ~D
Nice one Bmolsson , someone was bound to walk into it~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

It's a right handed weapon, simple as that, anyone who fires it left handed risks blindness and a good kicking from his NCO's.

---

Again, not all corners are left handed corners.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

:bow: wise words! :bow:

The question was: What is the best, not the biggest or most destructive?

So to me it is clear that the best army is the army that fulfills its job with minimum of resources spend.

So lets see:
The US? Rediculous overscaled. And hardly able to fulfill their job. Still struggling hard in Iraq and still could not catsch B.L.
China: Far to big. At least they fulfill their job: Defending the country and scaring Taiwan.

I really think that Tachikaze is right. Some smaller armies like Switzerland are doing a very good job.

The less you hear about an army in the new the better it is.

---

Switzerland, a nation of 8 million people, have about 300,000 men in their Army. That's 3% of their population, which is pretty large compared to alot of other nations (US has 1%, Canada has .3% aprrox).

Another major problem with the US military is not the military, it's the most idiotic commanders since Burnside. Also, the lack of will to send in the amount of men needed for a task also hurts us, majorly.

Occupation is not our forte by a long shot, but that's because we are overcautious when dealing with situations that may require a shoot first, ask questions later attitude. If Kofi Annan and the Gestap...er...UN weren't up our collective butt all the time maybe we'd stand a chance.

Quote:

---

So, i think we're agreed, the best army cannot be answered with one answer, man to man with equal numbers the U.K would kick tail,

---

1 on 1 versus Irish civlians maybe.

Quote:

---

Of course we lost both wars.

---

Due to insufficent manpower to fight England, the US, Russia, and (what was left of) France. Also, in regards to WWII, your leader (Adolf) had the military acumen of your average fly (though a fly could probably beat him), insufficient production capability (unable to produce enough of them Panzer Vs to deal with those damn Sherman Fireflys), and the fact that the troops in France, with the exception of the 2nd Panzer division (and a few others) weren't professional soldiers as much as conscripts and green, unexperienced garrison soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Again, not all corners are left handed corners.....

---

What's your point, ever tried to fire with your off hand? Not exactly accurate is it?

Once the right eye has been trained to dominance it'd be very hard to go back to the left. Therefore everyone is trained to shoot right handed.

Oh, and 83 modifications over 18 years, maybe but how many modification programmes has it gone through, could all the mods have been done in one or two steps? What about the M16, how many mods has that had? Or the SLR?

The claim your site made about not being able to sell them is wrong too, the decision was made not to sell them, yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Switzerland, a nation of 8 million people, have about 300,000 men in their Army. That's 3% of their population, which is pretty large compared to alot of other nations (US has 1%, Canada has .3% aprrox).

---

Didn't know that. Isn't the Suisse Army more like your national guard, having only few professionals? Do they really have 300,000 men in service? Then they have an army almost as big as Germany. Didn't Saddam have some 500,000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Another major problem with the US military is not the military, it's the most idiotic commanders since Burnside. Also, the lack of will to send in the amount of men needed for a task also hurts us, majorly.

---

Aren't commanders part of the military?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Occupation is not our forte by a long shot, but that's because we are overcautious when dealing with situations that may require a shoot first, ask questions later attitude. If Kofi Annan and the Gestap...er...UN weren't up our collective butt all the time maybe we'd stand a chance.

---

I did not mean that they intend to stay there for long. But the goals were to
beat Saddams army and get control, right? First goal was reached very fast but they are still working on the second. And maybe they have to stay for a while to reach it.
So my point was that the US army is not completly able to fulfil the job thatthe president (and the US people?) wants them to do.
Regarding the UN: I know we have different oppinions on that. But we discussed that before and don't see a reason to do it here again.