View Poll Results: Which is the best overall army?

Voters
601. You may not vote on this poll
  • USA

    353 58.74%
  • China

    36 5.99%
  • India

    4 0.67%
  • Russia

    35 5.82%
  • Pakistan

    4 0.67%
  • North Korea

    6 1.00%
  • South Korea

    1 0.17%
  • Israel

    48 7.99%
  • Turkey

    13 2.16%
  • Iran

    5 0.83%
  • OTHER[PLEASE SPECIFY]

    96 15.97%
Page 4 of 57 FirstFirst 12345678910111213142954 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 1131

Thread: Whats the Best Overall Army in the World?

  1. #61
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    Also, America spends more on its military than any other nation, that money doesn't all go to the soldier but a lot of next generation equipment. If they were to spend that much on soldiers, I'm sure there wouldn't have been body armor shortages and other such niceties in Iraq.
    Actually it does.

    The military expenditure of the Department of Defence for 2004 was:

    Total $437.111 Billion
    Operations and maintenance $174.081 Bil.
    Military Personnel $113.576 Bil.
    Procurement $76.217 Bil.
    Research & Development $60.756 Bil.
    Military Construction $6.310 Bil.

    According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$956,000,000,000.

  2. #62

    Default

    Then the shortage of body armor speaks for itself I think. I don't know where all that money goes.

  3. #63

    Default

    World population growth studies and 2050 projections are quite interesting and could change the balance of power.
    India should replace China as the biggest country with 1.6 billion people.
    The US should have 420 000 000 citizens.
    Japan will drop to 100 000 000.
    Germany will drop from 82 000 000 to only 70 000 000.
    UK's population will remain around 60 000 000.
    Italy will drop from 60 000 000 to only 45 000 000!!!
    France will increase from 62 000 000 to more than 75 000 000.
    Russia will drop from 140 000 000 to 110 000 000.

  4. #64
    Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Columbia, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,346

    Default

    China's population will also dramatically decrease, due to their One Child Policy.
    WE GO PLAY SOME HOOP

  5. #65

    Default

    No Britain...

    I vote Britain.
    Well, if I, Belisarius, the Black Prince, and you all agree on something, I really don't think there can be any further discussion.
    - Simetrical 2009 in reply to Ferrets54

  6. #66

    Default

    I can't stand the fac that I'm one of the five who voted for Israel. Their army is the most professional in the world, their system comes close to the militia system in the Roman republic, with a high percentage men who can fight for their country in a war.

  7. #67

    Default

    Just to blow our own trumpet a little, the British army is the only other army in the world that can effectively operate jointly with the American army, despite the Americans shooting at us from time to time.

    JAN.
    Last edited by JAN; October 01, 2005 at 11:40 AM.

  8. #68

    Default

    I can't stand the fac that I'm one of the five who voted for Israel. Their army is the most professional in the world, their system comes close to the militia system in the Roman republic, with a high percentage men who can fight for their country in a war.
    Their system has huge flaws. Israel lacks the ability to fight anything but a defensive war in the first place. A long, drawn out war would completely destroy Israel's economy. They would have to militarize such a large part of their population to compete that they would have no way of supplying themselves without outside aid.

    Besides that, much of their military system has in fact been established by America.

    Then the shortage of body armor speaks for itself I think. I don't know where all that money goes.
    The only thing it speaks of is the general ignorance of the public. None of our soldiers were without body armor. The mess was over how they didn't have the very latest body armor when going into Iraq. Your argument is baseless, though, because no other army in the world even has this equipment to begin with. Our outdated equipment is far superior to what you see any European army wearing.

    Also the german army is in a process of decreasing size, not expanding, meaning, it would not change even if there were no restrictions at all. The german army is still one of the largest in europe by the way.
    Germany has one of the largest because it is one of the largest. That's a pretty dumb statement. Germany wouldn't build up its military because what they have right now is mostly unprofessional. Their army is filled with conscripts. I would imagine they will adopt a policy like France's in the future.

    Germany is one of the few european nations that still employs conscripts, therefor "most europeans" seems a little off.
    Besides the UK and France, no European nations I know of have professional standing armies. The French only made the switch recently.

  9. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beats Hannibal
    Their system has huge flaws. Israel lacks the ability to fight anything but a defensive war in the first place. A long, drawn out war would completely destroy Israel's economy. They would have to militarize such a large part of their population to compete that they would have no way of supplying themselves without outside aid.
    Duh, you know how narrow Israel is? At some points not more than 50 miles, thus making it impossible for the army to fall back/retreat. In de '67 and '73 wars, they successfully counterattack the enemy: they dragged the war out of Israel. If they retreated, they would soon be driven into the sea by the Arabs. Yes, Israels economy is fragile for long wars. But the Israeli's know this, and most of their wars were quite short. What should a nation like Israel do in times of war? They have no such but to militarize most of the men. Economy doesn't matter when you're fighting with the enemy in front of you and the sea behind you.

  10. #70
    Mr.Flint's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beats Hannibal
    Their system has huge flaws. Israel lacks the ability to fight anything but a defensive war in the first place. A long, drawn out war would completely destroy Israel's economy. They would have to militarize such a large part of their population to compete that they would have no way of supplying themselves without outside aid.
    According to your statement the 6 days war never happened, the Lebanon war never happened etc. Every system has its flaws, but some flaws can be usefull, in this case this "flaw" made Israel to be the experts of succesfull lighting ops.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beats Hannibal
    Besides that, much of their military system has in fact been established by America.
    Now that is just plain silly and shows that you dont really know much about IDF.

  11. #71

    Default

    ...The thing about Israel is 'motivation.' They simply cannot afford to lose a war. Is there any doubt in any of you about what would happen to Israelis if they were to lose a war?
    ...People who write about Israeli warfare being copied from the U.S. know very little about the ingenuity and tactical innovation developed by the Israelis in their constant struggle for survival. The way they fight really has little in common with U.S. military doctrine.

  12. #72

    Default

    Germany has one of the largest because it is one of the largest. That's a pretty dumb statement.
    Oh you mean that the size of an army has to equal the population's size, yes? It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that germany was the main border with the warsaw pact states during the cold war, no? Also, this reply was not even to you which makes me wonder why exactly you felt the need to interfere calling it a dumb statement whereas I think you made the dumb statement here.
    Besides the UK and France, no European nations I know of have professional standing armies. The French only made the switch recently.
    Try Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Luxembourg. Italy will also switch to professional in 2006. That is a sizeable portion of european countries who have a professional army.

  13. #73
    Roberto's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    71

    Default

    The US army is the best because of numbers and technolgy

    However if the British had the same number of the US it would be a different story beacause the british army is the most well trained army in the world

  14. #74
    Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In a cottage cheese cottage in Levittown, New york
    Posts
    4,219

    Default

    Americans due to every reason for americans alredy posted so i wont bother to re-post them.

  15. #75

    Default

    I think I would have to be a part of each army to really understand just how well equipped people are or aren't or how well they are trained. Plus you have to account for the individual skill of each man, a bullet kills no matter what if aimed in the right place and a really fancy reliable gun does no good in the hands of someone so inept with it that no training can save them. Some divisions of infantry could completely suck just depending on who is in them even if they are well equipped. Who leads any of these forces? Surely in a RTW board we know the importance of the individuals commanding armies. Not only that but I haven't seen any nation really fight. Even the U.S. the media doesn't really provide **** for any body to observe. There has been no war in this modern period anyway to judge off of. The situation in Isreal may develop and N Korea may pose problems but really all these "wars" have been nothing more than conflicts and peacekeeping missions. Iraq? They're pushovers who can only draw out the inevitable until they run out of expendable people to blow up. Afghanistan, they were tough individually but could only draw out the inevitable through use of sniping and hiding in caves and alleyways. Kore and Vietnam weren't actually wars they were conflicts. In order to determine the real mettle of one of the superpowers there would unfortunately need to be some kind of war between two of them. But to give some kind of definitive opinion I would say the U.S. is potentially the best because of thier technology, industrial capability, and to an extent the population as long as they are in support of the war. They would be in troble though if they had to fight a coalition of middle eastern nations due tothier heavy reliance on foreign oil.

  16. #76
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    World population growth studies and 2050 projections are quite interesting and could change the balance of power.
    India should replace China as the biggest country with 1.6 billion people.
    The US should have 420 000 000 citizens.
    Japan will drop to 100 000 000.
    Germany will drop from 82 000 000 to only 70 000 000.
    UK's population will remain around 60 000 000.
    Italy will drop from 60 000 000 to only 45 000 000!!!
    France will increase from 62 000 000 to more than 75 000 000.
    Russia will drop from 140 000 000 to 110 000 000.
    In most real-world contexts populations almost always never equates to power, as evidenced by the legacy of the British Empire.

  17. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexander Beats Hannibal
    Besides that, much of their military system has in fact been established by America.
    This is not true. They used old rusty stenguns and messerschmidts in 48, there was no real help from America. And if America established their defence force, so what? All the west-European armies are established by the Americans.

  18. #78
    Protector Domesticus
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    4,045

    Default

    The US army is the best because of numbers and technolgy

    However if the British had the same number of the US it would be a different story beacause the british army is the most well trained army in the world
    This isn't a "what if" poll and even if it was such an assertion would still be wrong.

    Try Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Luxembourg. Italy will also switch to professional in 2006. That is a sizeable portion of european countries who have a professional army.
    Aside from Spain & to a degree Ireland, none of the fact that those countries maintain professional armies is nothing to gloat about. When combined all of their standing armies are just over 90 thousand troops, and that's not even factoring in equipment, organization, and so on. Naturally they'd be expected to be professional when they're that small. Spain's army alone is smaller than the US Marine Corps and there are still a portion of units in it that are conscripted.

  19. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Baron
    This is not true. They used old rusty stenguns and messerschmidts in 48, there was no real help from America. And if America established their defence force, so what? All the west-European armies are established by the Americans.
    Care to extrapolate on this one? For example first party to use principle of "loose" leadership (as in leaders of units are given objectives not direct instructions on what to do) was from Germany. As is system of modern combined arms. Etc etc...


    Everyone is warhero, genius and millionaire in Internet, so don't be surprised that I'm not impressed.

  20. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelius
    Aside from Spain & to a degree Ireland, none of the fact that those countries maintain professional armies is nothing to gloat about. When combined all of their standing armies are just over 90 thousand troops, and that's not even factoring in equipment, organization, and so on. Naturally they'd be expected to be professional when they're that small. Spain's army alone is smaller than the US Marine Corps and there are still a portion of units in it that are conscripted.
    Who said anything about gloat? This was about simple facts, so go search your argument elsewhere.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •