best army

[Incongruous]

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!

[Strike For The South]

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

[LeftEyeNine]

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 !!

[Ice]

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 !!

I agree.

[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.

[Kanamori]

Until someone decides they hate the US for what it is culturally and blows our buildings up.

[PanzerJaeger]

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 !!

Exactly!

[Tachikaze]

Until someone decides they hate the US for what it is culturally and blows our buildings up.

In 2001, the Twin Towers fell in spite of the fat, overfed US military.

The Pentagon itself was hit. Not much defense.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[KrooK]

Now - Israel
Their army keep fighing
When they have to practise something they attacks Palestina

[VAE VICTUS]

since im an american ill say USA ALL THE WAY! but the dead, they are the mightiest army of all. or something. its late.

[Papewaio]

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.

New Zealand?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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.

Canada?

*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* jk of course.

[Ice]

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 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.

Who needs an army!

[LeftEyeNine]

Zorba, if there is something very good around here, it is generally American, haven't you learned ?

[Tachikaze]

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.

Who needs an army!

There are many successful nations in no danger of invasion without large military budgets.

[Zalmoxis]

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.

Great philosophy. I'll be sure to conquer whatever country you rule first when I become instated as dictator .

[Franconicus]

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.

wise words!

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.

[miho]

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.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

wise words!

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.

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.

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.

[VAE VICTUS]

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.

and then are run over by their neighbors who have been building their army for years...lol

[Franconicus]

VV,
do not know where you live. But Germany is traditionally a very dangerous place, right in the middle of Europe. Nevertheless I do not have to fear any of our neighbors. Even if we would have no army at all, I doubt that the Austrians or Dutch would invade us. (Well, of course the Dutch do invade us every year, but we do the same to them, and to the Austrians, Italians, Spanish ... ).

I think good diplomacy and being good neighbor is more important than strong military. In fact Germany had the biggest wars when it had the strongets armies.

So small army and a moderate 'my country first' policy, some common sense and humanity - that is all it takes.

[Reverend Joe]

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 !!

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.)

[Papewaio]

If you are going to use history and quality then the Aussies did pretty well.

http://africanhistory.about.com/libr...stenemies3.htm

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."

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-heroes/monash.htm

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.

Then there is WWII...

[Shaka_Khan]

The ones with the best army are aliens who live in a galaxy far far away.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[LeftEyeNine]

GC,

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

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 !!

[Duke Malcolm]

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...

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...

[BDC]

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".