ok who as of today has the best army?
u.s.
china
britain
etc.
who would win?
Printable View
ok who as of today has the best army?
u.s.
china
britain
etc.
who would win?
Probably KISS.
The question sadly has a rather obvious answer, but perhaps if you'd ask it in about 10-15 years and I think there might actually be more of possible answers.
Britain certainly has one of/if not the best trained armies in the world, what with the royal Marines and SAS squadrons supporting them, they are dammed near invincible in pitched battle. Unfortunatly we dont have the numbers that comapre to the US and china, (not that i'm saying that the us and chinese armies are untrained) therefore i have no idea who has the best army
Bartix:duel:
The salvation army.
The Hell's Angels used to have the most formidable army- but most of them are too old now.
Moved to the Backroom.
Probably the only standing army in the world that the US perhaps couldn't win in a straight war even if it really tried to would be the Chinese one - on account of sheer size and resource base. There's no real way the Chinese could win, mind you, but they could grimly hang on until the US tires and sues for (nigh certainly advantageous) peace.
This is assuming a "no nukes" setting, though.
Holland? They'd polder the crap out of anyone.
I think Belgium has something to say about that. But I'm not sure what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Germany. I mean, presuming we cower, and don't launch any offensive operations. And no nukes.
Heck, forget it. We're not that great.
GO BARTIX!
Seriously though, Germany and Britain have the best training for their soldiers in the world.
Hard. Very hard.
The quality of a soldier is hard to judge. If you're talking about the best of the best, the USMC can kill just about anyone alive today. However, if you're speaking of relative standing army, Germany and Austria give the US army a run for it's money. Their training is very good, mainly because they have so much time to train in. I can't really answer this question, though.
NeonGod for teh win!
The Irish Army , it has never been defeated and really put on an impressive show in Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Well your forgetting a couple Irish units
THe Irish Brigade that fought for the Mexican Army during the Mexican-American War during the 1800's. But don't forget they all deserted from the American Army.
Or how about the Irish Brigades that fought in the Civil War, probably the largest immigrant group that fought on the side of the Union. (But I can't remember for sure right now.)
When you say 'who has the best army', do you mean 'the most powerful army' (which would be America, no real debate there), or do you mean 'best army' in the sense of best trained and equipped, in which case we have a debate? Also, are we looking at regular armies only, more elite forces, or the army as a whole?
Well your forgetting a couple Irish units
Nope , the topic was todays army.
ok who as of today has the best army?
Then the Irish don't qualify since the movies were made before yesterday. ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You would have to go with the Army as a whole - just based upon the question asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus
Well my extremely baised vote is of course the United States Army.Quote:
ok who as of today has the best army?
But I also would be place China a close 2nd - for many of the reasons already mentioned. What they lack in equipment and training they more then make up in numbers.
Then the Irish don't qualify since the movies were made before yesterday
But the Army has improved since the films , the revenue it created has meant that they could finally buy a couple of APCs and put an engine in one of their old Scimitars . Now all they need is for the Navy to get a film role so they can finally buy that deck gun they couldn't afford , maybe the Aircorps needs some money as well as their old Fouga Magisters are grounded .
So everyone launch a campaign in Hollywood , more films for Ireland as the defense forces could really do with the money . ~:cheers:
America: Got Ca$h?
China: It's not just their numbers, some of their weapons are truly nasty.
British: For sucking up to the Americans.
Israelis: For walking the fine line between madness and genius.
The Swiss... that army knife will stop anyone!
Honestly though, the US clearly has superiority in terms of destructive capability. The PRC may have a lot of men, but these days - manpower isn't everything. (I realise I may be biased somewhat here - considering I plan to join etc.) I do think the UK still has the best trained army - partly due to the training, and partly due to being pretty much continually involved in some kind of military action or other for gods know how long.
I think the Israeli army, wich never has run short of real life experience. Very good equipment, and for a small country Israel has a large and capable reserve force.
Britain!
Stuff the yanks, they think they're tough pah! Haven't seen them conquer a quater of the known world, plus we have better sounding accent's and the calm and cool reserve of the British officer class!:charge:
USA all the way NC baby We could destroy everyone~:cool: espesically the marines. Other than the israelis are badass mothas
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 !!
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
I agree.
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.
Until someone decides they hate the US for what it is culturally and blows our buildings up.~:)
Eheheheheheheeheheh! That was good. Thanks for the chuckle.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeonGod
I'm a member of the KISS army: I saw them in the mid-90s on their revival tour, in full make-up and with a fabulous set from the old days. It was hilarious to see all these 30-40 year-olds (me and six of my mates and their mistresses included) headbangin', gettin' loaded, and having a great time just like in the ol' days. They put on a monster show, even after all these years. GET UP, GET DOWN!
KISS ROCKS!
New Zealand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Canada?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
*tacks on list of "To Bomb by 2050 if I ever become dictator of a nation that has the technology for bombers, simply because someone likes that nation" list* :charge: ~D jk of course.
:hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Seriously, I think Tribesman nailed it. However, I can't seem to make myself think in the present... too much time in the past. In that case, the Scots are on the level as well; the highlanders were some of the best single regiments in history.
Also, the Turkish troops at Balaclava were, apparently, very highly disciplined; theywithstood a continuous, 30-gun barrage and a massive Russian assault for three hours before they were forced to abandon their redoubt; not to mention the fact that they made up two-thirds of the "thin red line", and without them the Highlanders would have folded. From what I have heard, this was, in large part, due to the Turkish military school at Constantinople, which was an underrated institution, as it was located at the heart of the Sick Man of Europe, and not a modern empire.
(Sorry for the rant. But modern times are so damn boring.)
If you are going to use history and quality then the Aussies did pretty well.
http://africanhistory.about.com/libr...stenemies3.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-heroes/monash.htmQuote:
In early August, a force of 150 Queensland Mounted Infantry, 100 New South Wales Bushmen, smaller numbers of Victorian and Western Australian Bushmen and 75 Rhodesians under command of a British officer, a Colonel Hore, were sent to guard a huge consignment of stores at the Elands River Post. They arrived at the post after a running fight with Boers front a commando of 2,500 to 3,000, commanded by General Jacobus "Koos" de la Rey, and quickly improvised a defensive position out of ox wagons and boxes and bags of stores. The commando surrounded the post and during the next two days poured 2,500 artillery shells into it from the hills around. Nearly all of the 1,500 horses, mules and oxen were killed or died of wounds from the shelling, but the troop casualties were very light, since the men burrowed into the rocky ground and stayed down. After the second day the bombardment eased, probably because the Boers realized they were destroying the stores they badly needed, but they kept up intense rifle and machine-gun fire.
During the day, the defenders lay motionless in their holes in the ground, but at night they came out. Some ran the gauntlet of fire to bring water from the river, while others repaired shattered defenses and dug deeper holes and others went out into the darkness looking for Boer field-gun and machine-gun positions, which they attacked loudly with grenades or silently with knives and bayonets. Many sleeping Boers and even wide-awake sentries lost their lives in this night stalking and attack. A Boer who had been at Elands River wrote: "For the first time in the war, we were fighting men who used our own tactics against us. They were Australian volunteers and though small in number we could not take their position. They were the only troops who could scout our lines at night and kill our sentries while killing and capturing our scouts. Our men admitted that the Australians were more formidable opponents and far more dangerous than any other British troops."
On August 8, de la Rey, under a flag of truce, advised the Australians that the whole area was in Boer hands and there was no hope of relief for the post. He offered safe conduct to the nearest British garrison if they would surrender. It was that, or destruction by his artillery. The offer was refused, and the bombardment began again. On the 12th, de la Rey sent another offer of honorable surrender, to which Colonel Hore replied: "Even if I wished to surrender to you--and I don't--I am commanding Australians who would cut my throat if I accepted your terms."
Then there is WWII...Quote:
The role of the Australian Corps in 1918 was indeed a remarkable one. Comprising only 9.5% of the BEF, it captured 18.5% of the German prisoners, 21.5% of the territory and 14% of the guns captured. This represented an effectiveness 1.95, 2.23 and 1.47 times that of the British Army average. These victories came at a cost, but this was still considerably less than that of the Somme fighting of 1916, or the Passchendaele fighting of 1917 or even the fighting at Bullecourt and Messines in mid 1917, and the results were immensely greater. The casualties were more or less matched by the 25,000 German prisoners taken; that many more Germans were killed or wounded is certain but their numbers are not known. Some 623 square kilometres of France was recaptured from the enemy.
The ones with the best army are aliens who live in a galaxy far far away.
Until their neighbors with the larger army come knocking on their door. They then proceed to rape their women, burn all the buildings, and murder all the men and children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Who needs an army!
Zorba, if there is something very good around here, it is generally American, haven't you learned ? ~;)
We are gods choosen what do you excepect? now al of you on your knees:knight:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
Nah, I don't believe God makes mistakes..Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Then call me a no-good half-Irish, half-Khazar pinko freak! :jester:Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
why dont you go kill some armenians~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine
I thought we were talking about armies not corny pickup lines... ~:joker:Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
Here is another Turkish proverb for such situations :Quote:
why dont you go kill some armenians
" That's a magpie on the rooftop,
Hit it with an pickaxe in the waist "
I bet you all said " WTF ?! ", and bingo ! That's what the proverb wants to tell.
is there honestly that much diffrence~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Exactly! ~:cheers:Quote:
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 !!
If we assume that two armies meet in full amount on a location unkown to both, surely the US army are the strongest and largest today. But if we see the purpose of the army itself, defense, there are not so many armies to put up.
Great philosophy. I'll be sure to conquer whatever country you rule first when I become instated as dictator ~;) .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
There are many successful nations in no danger of invasion without large military budgets.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost908
In 2001, the Twin Towers fell in spite of the fat, overfed US military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
The Pentagon itself was hit. Not much defense.
Huh. That'd put us Finns pretty high on the ladder. Coscript armies run comparatively cheaply, you know ?Quote:
The winner is the one who spends the least on its military and more on its social health.
Now if only God had chosen to give you the gift of spelling then the US would rule supreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
No, wait, don't you just change the words to suit yourselves anyway?
Honour, metre....................
Sad, sad world... no doubt the U.S. army is the most well-fed army of today. So if my peaceful country would get attacked by the evil-weevil neighbours I would simply call the Americans and tell 'em to bomb the damn crap outta the aggressors.
Well...no...my pride would feel hurt. I'd set up the Prussian Army again! All hail! :charge:
Although the US only has ¼ of the population of China the US has 8 times the GDP as China and both are nearly the same size (in total sq miles) with the US being only slightly larger. But because of the US’s more industrialized infrastructure, economy and logistic capabilities the US would have an advantage against all others with any kind of short term or prolonged military action.
The biggest adversary the US military faces is its own people. The US citizens tire quickly of war and can cause a major disruption to the country leading to poor decisions on the part of the government. If the conservatives were joined by the liberals, who are usually opposed to war (and too many other things to mention), to collectively work as a total united country against a common threat the US would be completely unstoppable. It is out fractured population that turn prolonged military actions into a soup sandwich.~:)
Here is a nice article I found on the subject.
Its not really a spoiler, I just wanted to try putting the article in the post without taking up all the room. There is a link in there too.:bow:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Then than would be Iceland which has no armed forces at all.Quote:
The winner is the one who spends the least on its military and more on its social health.
The US army is obviously without any serious challenger (including the Chinese, whose equipment is far too poor) but I'd rather PAY FOR the British Army any day.
If the question is whos has the most pwerful armed forces the clear winner is the US. We have the most powerful military in the history of the world by a large margin.
I'm sure Johnnies would route off the battlefield when they saw the Golden Horde..Quote:
We have the most powerful military in the history of the world by a large margin.
Anyway, I want to repeat : (altogether, clap your hands)
USA IS VERY BEST AH USA WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE WITHOUT YOUR MIGHTY PRESENCE, I NEED USA, USA IN MY DREAMS, HEY HEY THEY SAVE THE WORLD EVERYDAY. WHAT IF THE ALIENS ATTACKED ? OF COURSE IT WOULD BE USA SAVING THE WORLD HEY HEY HEY !!!
I doubt that very much. Even the German army of WW2 wouldnt last a month against the small force we have now.Quote:
I'm sure Johnnies would route off the battlefield when they saw the Golden Horde..
Thay ofcourse... they have the Red Wizards man!
... oh wait... in our world?
USA ofcourse... most money = most firepower.
I think the cows will fly one day..Quote:
I doubt that very much. Even the German army of WW2 wouldnt last a month against the small force we have now.
How do you assume that ?
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.
Lets see. ME 109 vs F-15, Tiger vs A1 Abrahms , Apache and Cobra vs ? would you like to continue?Quote:
I think the cows will fly one day..
How do you assume that ?
With your minimal army against WW2 Germans you said, right ?
Yes, the superiority is that great lefteyenine...I hate to agree with Gawain but he is correct. Assuming the American force has sufficient ammunition I think say a division could trump a vastly superior force of WWII germans, the technology is just that superior
Saying that the USMC are the best infantarymen in the world by a mile is somewhat misleading...the royal marines aren't famous for nothing...and there are also quite a lot of marines in the US as opposed to UK
All of those would fail against a flying cow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Imagine flying into one at mach 2. The entire jet would just disintegrate.
:bow:
I hate to admit it but thats true. For their size they are the best infantry in the world however. Ive known many British Marines and they are trained above our level. However just like SEALs they are a far smaller force.Quote:
Saying that the USMC are the best infantarymen in the world by a mile is somewhat misleading...the royal marines aren't famous for nothing...and there are also quite a lot of marines in the US as opposed to UK
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Also, I think the USMC is about the size of the british army if my memory serves me correctly...
Yes, but the British Army is damned more effective...
The British Army is the best for soldier skill, experience, training, et cetera., as well as good technology
The U.S. has excellent technology (if perhaps a little too good)
the Chinese PLA has vast numbers
Germany also has excellent soldiers, but I don't know its size and equipment, but that is probably also good
The Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment, the Black Watch, the Guards Division, and numerous other regiments in the British Army are better than the USMC...
Don't forget the Israelis. They're under constant training, which certainly increases their effectiveness, and they've got good funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
Oh, of course, the Israelis... How could I forget, especialy with those amazing bulldozers...
I still like the KISS answer.
The Austrian government has a nice overview about many nations´military. Beware, German language! ;)
http://www.bmlv.at/truppendienst/mil...countrymap.php
Hey, that IS a nice site. Some facts seem outdated (1999, with some updates up to 2003) but still... thanks.
Isn’t that what the British said before the American Revolution? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by King Malcolm
That's what we've always said and its always been true.
We were ill supplied...
And they had France and Spain. We could not focus our military strength.
If it was a straight fight, no allies or foreign support, we would have won.
Just poking fun at the comment, I know the situation. ~;p
When it comes to (self-)discipline, doggedness and intelligence of the soldiers, the endgame has to be between Israel and Vietnam. Not a competitor in sight for these two, so sorry.
:bow:
When one considers the environments and circumstances in which these two forces developed, this should come as no surprise. It is also no surprise that they tend to be overlooked in favor of dazzling technology, military wealth and immediate political influence, superiority of numbers, and the romance of popular history.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Yes and our guys with no boots had tons of supplies.~:rolleyes:Quote:
That's what we've always said and its always been true.
We were ill supplied...
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~D. Now we could crush them!