Whats the Best Overall Army in the World?

[SovietDoom]

Of course, we can always turn our youth into good citizens by changing the school curriculum.

[JP226]

hmmmm, when it's all said and done, i'm really surprised that 6 of you thought the isrealis were a better military package, and a whopping 10 of you voted for other. Statistically i'm surprised that, that many of you are ignorant. When you look at the ENTIRE package, the US military is pound for pound a more powerful military than any in the world, and, ratio wise, any in history.

Let me explain. In comparing the US to Isreal, many of you think that soldier for soldier the Isrealis are a better force. I disagree. Training wise, I'd say it's possible that teh Isrealis are better trained. Fine, and they may have a little more combat experience. Although I highly doubt that currently. But when you size up the American soldier compared to the isreali soldier, bringing in support, supply and logistics, how far his reach is and so on, the US soldier is undoubtedly better. Take an Isreali regiemnt and stick it in the mountains of, I dunno, the caucas, and pit an american regiment against it, the US will come out on top. The US will always have the food, the ammo, the "comforts" while the isreali soldier won't. Sure they may be able to use bulet for bullet better, that is arguable though, but who's to say they will have enough bullets to finish the job. The American soldier will. That goes for any military in the world, the US has a better command and control, the US has a better logistical setup, the US has the best technology. That means pound for pound the US is currently unbeatable. The US is without a doubt the most powerful military force currently. What is the saying, arm cair generals talk tactics while generals talk logistics? That is cetrtainly the case for the US.

[Mr.Flint]

hmmmm, when it's all said and done, i'm really surprised that 6 of you thought the isrealis were a better military package, and a whopping 10 of you voted for other. Statistically i'm surprised that, that many of you are ignorant. When you look at the ENTIRE package, the US military is pound for pound a more powerful military than any in the world, and, ratio wise, any in history.

Let me explain. In comparing the US to Isreal, many of you think that soldier for soldier the Isrealis are a better force. I disagree. Training wise, I'd say it's possible that teh Isrealis are better trained. Fine, and they may have a little more combat experience. Although I highly doubt that currently. But when you size up the American soldier compared to the isreali soldier, bringing in support, supply and logistics, how far his reach is and so on, the US soldier is undoubtedly better. Take an Isreali regiemnt and stick it in the mountains of, I dunno, the caucas, and pit an american regiment against it, the US will come out on top. The US will always have the food, the ammo, the "comforts" while the isreali soldier won't. Sure they may be able to use bulet for bullet better, that is arguable though, but who's to say they will have enough bullets to finish the job. The American soldier will. That goes for any military in the world, the US has a better command and control, the US has a better logistical setup, the US has the best technology. That means pound for pound the US is currently unbeatable. The US is without a doubt the most powerful military force currently. What is the saying, arm cair generals talk tactics while generals talk logistics? That is cetrtainly the case for the US.

There is no doubt that overall the US army is far better, Israel simply doesnt have neither the human resource nor the cash. but narrowing to aspects the IDF is superior to the US army. and that US got better command and control, is quite arguable.
besides you can argue that the "betterness" of an army can be judged on its ability to achieve its goals, on this part the US army is not so good.

[Caelius]

Put this poll in about 10-15 years. I'll be happy to choose China.

Best Improvement - China

Might as well keep hoping then, because the US isn't going to be knocked or even challenged for it's military pedestal (in peace time) for a long long while. I suggest you read up on the concept put forth by the Pentagon top brass a few years ago for the US to have absolute "Full Spectrum Dominance" as they would call it on any battlefield(s) around the world by 2020, not to mention that in terms of improvement and innovation the US has literally been lightyears ahead of any other nation for military R&D.

Mind boggling how lacking you are in your knowledge, even simple wikipedia contradicts you
US never supplied Israel until middle of 1973 war when Israel was in dire situation. This doesnt mean that there was no US made equipment (old shermans bought from eropean scrapyards? ) its maybe surprizing to you but France was a major weapons supplier for a long while.
Brits were the major influence and source for the IDF.
Funnily Israeli nukes were made with the help of France and Britain! and the US was incredibly ****** about that!
as for today's aid? yes there is one, and the US gets back plenty of tech and expertise.

You've obviously never heard of Mickey Marcus, or the fact that the US and France to a lesser but still important extent supplied Israel with a huge amount of Grade A weapons directly from their two arsenals, everything from tanks, rifles, etc. years before the 1973 war, beginning in 1954 before the Suez Crisis. Although (and it shouldn't be surprising) the US was able to provide more of the basic necessities the Israelis needed because of all the surplus material it had left over from WWII. You're certainly right that the IDF has it's roots from the British, especially from the Haganah units and "Jewish Brigade" of the British Army in Palestine from WWII, but that's the extent of it. After WWII the Israelis were pretty much left to fend on their own in terms of building a new military and it wasn't until the arrival of Col. Marcus that the IDF as it is known as today was truly formed.

Here's the bio of Col. Marcus (US rank), the first of many other American officers and advisors who would come to Israel as the Middle East became another facet of the Cold War.

Marcus helped draw up the surrender terms for Italy and Germany and became part of the occupation government in Berlin after 1945. During that time, Marcus was put in charge of planning how to sustain the starving millions in areas liberated by the Allies, and clearing out the Nazi concentration camps. He was subsequently named chief of the War Crimes Division, planning legal and security procedures for the Nuremberg trials.

In 1947 David ben Gurion asked Marcus to recruit "an American officer" to serve as key strategic military advisor to the nascent Jewish army, the Haganah, "Defense Force". As he could not recruit anyone suitable, Marcus decided to "volunteer" himself and in 1948, the United States War Department granted leave to Colonel Marcus, who was a reservist, provided Marcus disguised his name and rank to avoid problems with the British Mandate of Palestine.

Under the name "Michael Stone" in keeping with the understanding of the U.S. government, he arrived in Israel in January 1948, four months prior to the official Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948, facing the Arab armies surrounding the soon-to-be State of Israel.

He designed a command and control structure for the nascent Israel Defense Force adapting his war experiences at Ranger school to its special needs. He identified Israel's weakest points in the Negev south, and Jerusalem.

Marcus was appointed as Commander of the Jerusalem front, and given the rank of aluf, brigadier general. He was in command of operations of the breakthrough to Jerusalem when the Jewish section of Jerusalem was about to fall. To lift the siege, Marcus ordered the construction of an ingenious innovative road, a make-shift winding road through the difficult mountains to Jerusalem, known as the "Burma Road" for its namesake built by the Allies from Burma to China during World War II, bringing in additional men and equipment to break the Arab siege just days before the United Nations negotiated a cease fire on June 9th, 1948.

When Ben Gurion promoted Marcus to Brigadier General he became the first general in a Jewish army in the Land of Israel in two millennia.

but narrowing to aspects the IDF is superior to the US army. and that US got better command and control, is quite arguable.
besides you can argue that the "betterness" of an army can be judged on its ability to achieve its goals, on this part the US army is not so good.

Feel free to elaborate then, how could the IDF in all it's positive aspects possibly have a J7 global level of command & control as the US does currently? Or examples of how the US Army is bad at achieving it's goals, and if you do what I think you're going to do then do you really think the IDF would do better in a similar situation?

[Mr.Flint]

You've obviously never heard of Mickey Marcus, or the fact that the US and France to a lesser but still important extent supplied Israel with a huge amount of Grade A weapons directly from their two arsenals, everything from tanks, rifles, etc. years before the 1973 war, beginning in 1954 before the Suez Crisis. Although (and it shouldn't be surprising) the US was able to provide more of the basic necessities the Israelis needed because of all the surplus material it had left over from WWII. You're certainly right that the IDF has it's roots from the British, especially from the Haganah units and "Jewish Brigade" of the British Army in Palestine from WWII, but that's the extent of it. After WWII the Israelis were pretty much left to fend on their own in terms of building a new military and it wasn't until the arrival of Col. Marcus that the IDF as it is known as today was truly formed.

Here's the bio of Col. Marcus (US rank), the first of many other American officers and advisors who would come to Israel as the Middle East became another facet of the Cold War.

Reading your reply i see that you misunderstood me, so for the sake of peace ill clarify
I objected the statement that IDF is an extension of USA, and i object the statement that the Israel and IDF exist solely due to US support.
There is absolutly no denial that the IDF owes much to foreigners - the MACHAL - Mitnadvei Chutz L'Aretz - Volunteers from Outside Israel David Daniel Marcus IS a great man, and hero (although quite underrated) (also the first general of the IDF) but he as many others do not qualify as an extension of US goverment, he came in as a volunteer on a personal request, his acomplishments in Israel simply cannot be credited to USA, they are HIS and ,his comrades from MACHAL, achievemnts.
Now grade A weapons you say? hmmm sherman is hardly a grade A weapon and those werent bought from the US but then there is the M48, that was bought first from Germany then from US. Until the 1973 war, USA was quite reluctant in weapons sales to Israel, and one important thing, all those weapons were paid for, nothing was for free.

"Up until the mid-1960s, State Department and Pentagon officials argued that Israel did not need American arms because it was strong enough to defend itself (as evidenced by the Suez campaign) and had access to arms elsewhere. Officials also worried that the Arabs would be alienated and provoked to ask the Soviets and Chinese for weapons that would stimulate a Middle East arms race.

U.S. policy first shifted with John Kennedy's 1962 sale of HAWK antiaircraft missiles to Israel, which was made over the objection of the State Department, but only after Egypt obtained long-range bombers from the Soviets. Lyndon Johnson subsequently provided Israel with tanks and aircraft, but these sales were balanced by transfers to Arab countries. U.S. policy was to avoid providing one state in the area a military advantage over the other. This changed in 1968 when Johnson announced the sale of Phantom jets to Israel. That sale established the United States as Israel's principal arms supplier. It also marked the beginning of the U.S. policy to give Israel a qualitative military edge over its neighbors."

U.S.-Israel Relations: A Special Alliance
By Mitchell Bard

sites of interest:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com
Israeli Weapons Systems Employed by the U.S.
and my favorite gadget developed by Israel http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...orner_Shot.htm

Or examples of how the US Army is bad at achieving it's goals, and if you do what I think you're going to do then do you really think the IDF would do better in a similar situation?

well since you expect me to bring in the Iraq issue, i wont bring it in, because in Israel's history only Lebanon war can more or less compare.
what about battle of Mogadishu? as a comparison i can put in Operation Spring of Youth or Operation Entebbe....

[Black Sabbath X]

Im not an American, but i think they do have the best weapons of war.

Like Stealth bombers, Smart Bombs , Apaches , and the mighty trident submarines.
Quite an impressive arsenal i would say.

I dont know if America has the best trained soldiers in the world , but what does that matter
( because soon america doesnt even need soldiers anymore , theyll use unmanned tanks or other machines)

heck they allready have unmanned planes.

[Rapax]

You mean the UAV drones? Who doesn't have them?

[Hamelkart]

America might have the best army who could fight conventional war against any other nation and win because of the experience and tactics, but US Army really sucks bad when fighting against guerilla and terrorists. This was proven both in Vietnam where they even lost war because of not knowing how to deal with hidden resistance and in Iraq where they keep dying while on the other side for every fallen fighter terrorists recruit two others.

US Army is actually a modernized copy of Wehrmacht who could easily penetrate large nation's defences (French and USSR) but was getting slaughtered against resistance and partisans in lands like France, Yugoslavia, Russia or Italy.

[Oldgamer]

America might have the best army who could fight conventional war against any other nation and win because of the experience and tactics, but US Army really sucks bad when fighting against guerilla and terrorists. This was proven both in Vietnam where they even lost war because of not knowing how to deal with hidden resistance and in Iraq where they keep dying while on the other side for every fallen fighter terrorists recruit two others.

US Army is actually a modernized copy of Wehrmacht who could easily penetrate large nation's defences (French and USSR) but was getting slaughtered against resistance and partisans in lands like France, Yugoslavia, Russia or Italy.

The United States military is doing a bang-up job against guerillas and terrorists. As I've had to say in several other threads, I've actually been "over there", and have been able to see what's going on for myself.

The mark of the job we're doing in Iraq is the fact that the enemy's base ... the Sunnis ... is going to participate in the democracy now. There's a few disgruntled Saddam loyalists among the Sunnis, and some of the most amazingly-young foreign "fighters" you've ever seen. The enemy's morale, training, and discipline is at an all-time low. They can attack, but it will result is massive action against them by US forces, and 36 battalions of ******-off Iraqi troops.

If an enemy has to use retarded (literally) 15-year olds to make suicide attacks on women and children, they are at the last gasp. The Iraqi Constitution, and the elections that will follow it, will seal the doom of the Iraqi insurgency-that-never-was, and all that will be left is the occasional terrorist from out-of-country.

I was also in Vietnam ...

Vietnam is the only war I can think of where everyone thinks that the nation that won, militarily, lost the war. The defeat ... not of the US military ... but of US policy, had nothing to do with US forces "sucking" against guerillas. It had everything to do with a US government that did not allow the military to do everything that it could to win the war, and that includes pursuing the enemy into his privileged sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos, and the destruction of his army on its home turf in North Vietnam. When you design a policy of fighting on interior lines, you will not lose a war militarily, but your policy will be defeated.

Concerning the Wehrmacht, I would suggest that you broaden your reading on the subject of their handling of the partisan threat. As good as the French and Yugoslav partisans were, there were at best nothing more than a nuisance. Also, the United States Armed Forces are not and never have been modelled after the Wehrmacht.

[Da_TRU_1]

The United States military is doing a bang-up job against guerillas and terrorists. As I've had to say in several other threads, I've actually been "over there", and have been able to see what's going on for myself.

I was also in Vietnam ...

Vietnam is the only war I can think of where everyone thinks that the nation that won, militarily, lost the war. The defeat ... not of the US military ... but of US policy, had nothing to do with US forces "sucking" against guerillas. It had everything to do with a US government that did not allow the military to do everything that it could to win the war, and that includes pursuing the enemy into his privileged sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos, and the destruction of his army on its home turf in North Vietnam. When you design a policy of fighting on interior lines, you will not lose a war militarily, but your policy will be defeated.

Great point Oldgamer. The United States never lost a major engagement in Vietnam. They had a 20 to 1 kill ratio(possibly more but the Vietnamese were great at hiding their casualties after battles), despite fighting half way around the world, outnumbered, and fighting a battle hardened well supplied and equipped(I would take an AK47 over an M16 ANY DAY) enemy. It was a pathetic, lets fight with 1 hand behind our back, policy that doomed the US cause. They didnt pursue fleeing VC and NVA across the Laotion and Cambodian borders, which let them regroup and come back for more. They would win a bloody battle for important terrain, then just leave and give it back the the NVA. The US didnt lose, they left.

[barbarion horde]

You mean the UAV drones? Who doesn't have them?

I once saw a Discovery Channel special on UAVs and other unmanned planes, I also heard from the same program that the U.S and some other countries have been developing actual unmanned fighter planes, does anybody have a link on these "unmanned fighter planes" I can't seem to find a credible source on them.

Never mind,

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2324

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6200

[Hamelkart]

Concerning the Wehrmacht, I would suggest that you broaden your reading on the subject of their handling of the partisan threat. As good as the French and Yugoslav partisans were, there were at best nothing more than a nuisance. Also, the United States Armed Forces are not and never have been modelled after the Wehrmacht.

And trust me, I've been to places where Germans lost thousands and thousands of troops due to partisan attacks. If they were only a nuisance then you should explain to me why would German army mobilize 8 Wehrmacht and Italian and 1-2 SS divisions plus many battalions of Croatian and Serbian forces (Fall Weiss offensive) to defeat a mere "nuisance"?
That nuisance BTW beat the crap out of enemies even heavily outnumbered and carrying thousands of wounded soldiers and ill civilians. Axis losses were catastrophical at battles of Neretva and Sutjeska.
Yugoslavia was the only country liberated by its resistance and not by Allied or Russian forces.
Trust me, I had time and I lived in the right place to "expand" my research on partisan warfare during these years.

[~Beren~]

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

I don't know about numbers. China outnumbers America by...what? 20:1? America, however, has the best technology in the world. They have the best equipment, best armour, and best weaponry. American scientists are already develping next generations of armaments to fight an enemy that is constantly evolving in the future. I remeber reading about the weaponry America has and is already making, and I gotta tell you, it would make the AK-47 look like a pea shooter. (Well, not really )

China may have a lot of men, but how will they pay them all? How can they afford to buy them all equipment? Would they ask another country for money? I guess not, but if they do who will give them money? I mean, its like helping someone who might be able to take over the world. But if they find another way of getting currency, it will be damn hard to organize all of their men. They should rely on skill rather than numbers. :sweatingb

[Oldgamer]

I remeber reading about the weaponry America has and is already making, and I gotta tell you, it would make the AK-47 look like a pea shooter.

I have used the Barrett XM-109, which is a 25mm "sniper" rifle, which has an AP capability out to 2000 meters, and and a soft target capability beyond 3 miles. I've hit targets regularly beyond 3 miles. Of course, you don't want to play with the thing too much. It has a recoil of 60 lbs per square inch! Ouch!!

[Tiwaz]

I don't know about numbers. China outnumbers America by...what? 20:1? America, however, has the best technology in the world. They have the best equipment, best armour, and best weaponry. American scientists are already develping next generations of armaments to fight an enemy that is constantly evolving in the future. I remeber reading about the weaponry America has and is already making, and I gotta tell you, it would make the AK-47 look like a pea shooter. (Well, not really )

China may have a lot of men, but how will they pay them all? How can they afford to buy them all equipment? Would they ask another country for money? I guess not, but if they do who will give them money? I mean, its like helping someone who might be able to take over the world. But if they find another way of getting currency, it will be damn hard to organize all of their men. They should rely on skill rather than numbers. :sweatingb

Pay? For soldiers you mean? What makes you think nation in war would be paying the soldiers? Slap on some national emergency and troops will be paid peanuts.

And chinese train army regularily. They have organised system, unlike you seem to think. Might you perhaps be an american who thinks no other country knows how to drill soldiers? Or that only paid troops can grasp concept of organisation?

And finally... Quantity is quality in itself. No matter how skilled superrambo soldier is he can only be in one place at the time. Think of Thermopylae... One part of the army held the spartans and allies in the pass while contingent was sent to maneuver around them.

Oh and last thing... Armies are not put to arms all at once. Most tend to be in reserves where they can be summoned to replenish forces.

[Oldgamer]

Pay? For soldiers you mean? What makes you think nation in war would be paying the soldiers? Slap on some national emergency and troops will be paid peanuts.

And chinese train army regularily. They have organised system, unlike you seem to think. Might you perhaps be an american who thinks no other country knows how to drill soldiers? Or that only paid troops can grasp concept of organisation?

And finally... Quantity is quality in itself. No matter how skilled superrambo soldier is he can only be in one place at the time. Think of Thermopylae... One part of the army held the spartans and allies in the pass while contingent was sent to maneuver around them.

Oh and last thing... Armies are not put to arms all at once. Most tend to be in reserves where they can be summoned to replenish forces.

Tiwaz,

It's all right if the Chinese don't have the tech-might of the the United States. They shouldn't. For one thing, they've been ruled by a communist system since 1949, and they didn't have the benefit of "their" German scientists, at the end of WWII (like the Soviets). For another, they just haven't had the money to do the R&D needed to develop high tech.

Including their Class C reserves, the Chinese can put tens of millions of soldiers in the field. However, the vast majority of these people wouldn't even be armed. The Chinese military has about two and a half million men at arms, right now. The Class A are well-armed, for a 1970's army. Their Class B forces ... which make up the bulk of their army ... are no better armed and trained than Saddam's forces (early '60's, at best). This is a generational thing, and the Chinese have yet to enter the 21st Century.

Of course, the Chinese train, and they train hard. But they don't have the generational infrastucture ... which includes technology ... to take on superpowers, at the present time. They're trying hard, but it takes time. Chinese history pre-, mid-, and post- WWII has held them back.

The Chinese are the true "paper tiger" of the industrialised world, today. However, if we continue to subsidise their armed forces and research by buying Chinese, that will change, around mid-century (which is one reason why I will never buy anything that says "Made in China" on it).

One last thing ... the word "soldier" comes from the Latin, and it means "he who is paid". After a lifetime of war, and meeting hundreds of people from the national armies of other countries, I can tell you for a fact that the nation that doesn't take care of their soldiers and families has a military crisis on their hands. You can't expect men to risk their lives without pay and other benefits. It goes with the territory.

[tomdidiot]

America. M1A1 Tanks, M16 Rifles, Bradley IFVs, insane air superiority, insane naval superiority, a technological edge, what more can we want?

[Rapax]

America. M1A1 Tanks, M16 Rifles, Bradley IFVs, insane air superiority, insane naval superiority, a technological edge, what more can we want?

Lightsabers?

[Oldgamer]

Lightsabers?

A phaser is greatly desired by me ...

[Rapax]

Pfff..
A Lightsaber is an elegant weapon for a more civilized age, not as clumsy or as random as a phaser.