World's Best Armies

Best Armies of the World

  • USA

    Votes: 22 71.0%
  • Pakistan

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • India

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • France

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Israel

    Votes: 11 35.5%
  • China

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • UK

    Votes: 11 35.5%
  • Japan

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Germany

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • Iran

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Russia

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • South Korea

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31

dannybou

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Another fine example on how our Government treats our military. They had announced that our Sea King helicopters would be all replaced by the year 2012, well now it was learned that some will still remain after 2012. So these helicopters will be 40 years old by then. They cost 50 million dollars a year just to repair and upkeep. 30 hours of maintenance required for 1 hour of flight. :crazy:
 

Churchill

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
0
Reaction score
0
Best

Best is a very transitory word, particularly in the realm of military science. In reading the comments it suddenly became clear that we had fallen into a trap. We were measuring an uneven playing field. While America's forces appear to be unbeatable...the reality is that like every organization they have foibles. So the question needs to be reduced and examined in light of the human material that constitute a nations military tool. Not how many high tech tanks, or how many cruise missles. but how many well trained, educated, and committed men and women who are prepared to carry out military policy.

Numbers alone do not provide the answer. Just as three hundred Spartans held a narrow pass against a host, so a small highly skilled and committed force can wreak unimagineable havoc against a much larger but less well trained foe. I think there are a number of nations that merit serious consideration for the title "Best" when were step away from the numbers game. Can we take a moment and look carefully at what might be called "elite" units. There are rather moderate numbers of these forces around the world. Yes, some are more elite than others. But "elite" is generally considered to manifest a certain military capacity. Do you agree with that premis? Perhaps that is the level playing field we need to examine?
 

Aubrey's Pet

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
East Of The Sun, West Of The Moon!
Country
llUnited States
In reply to ER Chaser's comment about the Japs having the best submarines of the non-nuclear variety in the world well I'll have to disagree with that one.

Despite initial problems the Australian Collins class diesel electric submarines (with US Navy Technical Assistance) have proven to be right up there with the best. In exercises with the USN the Aussies had reportedly "Sunk" one of the PAC flt's CVN's, and was able to run away.

The Israeli's new Dolphin Class Subs are also state of the art and are right up there as well.
 

Aubrey's Pet

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
East Of The Sun, West Of The Moon!
Country
llUnited States
Re: best armies

Originally posted by Bow
Ok now dont get me wrong but the following thought comes to mind..Both the US and Israeli armies are rated high on the scale BUT both armies have not fought anybody who can fight back on an equal scale..

The US has all the bells and whistle but has not fought a competent army since maybe Korea or Veit Nam, all the latest wars have been fought against a bunch of incompentent rabbles , what would be the outcome if it had to fight a European trained army equal in manpower and equipment??and as for Israel, well they seem to do pretty good against small arms, RPG,s soft skinned targets and kids with rocks and sling shots. None of their wars of late have been fought against heavy duty fire power and in one of them (too many to count) if it hadnt been for US resupply they would have been in deep trouble as a bunch of Syrian infantry sure did a number on their tank corps.

What do you scale armies on, their offensive or defensive capabilities, grunts in offensive armies from Alexanders time till now tend to want to go home after awhile, while defensive armies on their home turf will still till the last .

If you want to talk defensive I would rate the Swiss up there with the best, every man from 18/54 serves and knows their home turf, their airforces knows the mountains and valleys and low level ground hugging and all their equipment is state of the art , they even got new bycyles for their mountain troops, dont laugh you would be suprised what can be carried on a bike.

The Brits are up there on urban fighting as they have been in continuose action with the IRA since the mid 60,s and the SAS has had its fingers in many pies since god knows when and teaches most of the European SF people.

The Canadian army, though neglected by our government, rates up there on small action and ranger / marine type operations.

I could keep on all day but have things to do... bye
Actually the Israelis already stopped the invasion by the Syrians on the second or third day, and the Egyptians were relatively not as much of a worry. It wasn't until four or five days or more later that the US decided to do their resupply to help the IDF finish the war the Arabs and their Soviet sponsors started, by taking the war to the enemy on their turf.

The Arabs by contrast had continuous Soviet support well before and during the Yom Kippur War, and when their allies were losing, especially the Egyptians they nearly came to their aid, threatening to send airborne troops into the Sinai(I think?). As we all know Nixon put US Forces on Defcon 3 and for the moment it looked as though this Mid East war was going to grow into a superpower bout.

Though the war lasted about 18 days, fighting did not cease until May 1974.
 

DANJANOU

Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Location
Some seedy third world bar with sitting with my ba
Country
llCanada
Napoleonic Fury said:
A Canadian battleship is a rowboat with a machine gun on the front and they still owe their alliegance to the Queen of England.
Actually she is the Queen of Canada. That’s her official title here as the official head of state. Might surprise you but we are not part of Britain. We were the first colony to gain independence, aside from those that chose armed rebellion, and self government back in 1867, setting the precedent for the others, and allowing the Old Empire to become the Commonwealth.

As for the first part I’d be pretty careful about making cracks about the military capabilities of your allies considering your reputation re mistruths and shooting from the hip here. For the record the Halifax Class CFPs were one of the most advance in the world when they came out, several middle power were interested in getting them as an alternative to buying US or European. They still hold their own, ask the USN, how well they and the Canadian navy have performed in the Persian Gulf since 9/11. Also care to ask any US Carrier Battle Group Commander how many times he was “sunk” during NATO exercises during the cold war by a clapped out Canadian Oberon Class SSK?

Sweden barely ever fights in a major war and lets face it, the vikings are long gone.
Ever wondered why they were able to remain neutral? Take a look at their military capabilities. Also Swedish troops have performed admirably on more than one UN Peacekeeping Mission.

Don't get me wrong, i am not putting down the fight or ambition behind these soldiers.
Glad to hear that after trash talking them.


But, when it comes to organiztion, money, and industry, (the three most important things to run an army) the US and Israel are the best. We have to look at the total war and not just nationalistic pride or heart.
I don’t know call me crazy but little things like good leadership, Esprit de’ Corp and good training sometimes play a factor.

As for the original topic, sorry really can’t get into this whose the best/worst threads. They usually turn into “I’m the best you’re all crap” Johnson waving contests.
 

Jack Dionne

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
933
Reaction score
2
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
Country
llCanada
Where to start!

Napoleonic Fury said:
Canada, Sweden, and other Middle eastern countries do not count in World's greatest armies. How is that so? A Canadian battleship is a rowboat with a machine gun on the front and they still owe their alliegance to the Queen of England. Sweden barely ever fights in a major war and lets face it, the vikings are long gone. Any other middle eastern countries don'y count either because we have just proven that they can't fight a major war against a superpower. Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Libya, all got their buts whipped by the Israelis during the six day way. The US and Israel have the worlds best armies and no other country even comes close. Middle eastern countries shouldn't even be on the list nevermind the top five. Don't get me wrong, i am not putting down the fight or ambition behind these soldiers. But, when it comes to organiztion, money, and industry, (the three most important things to run an army) the US and Israel are the best. We have to look at the total war and not just nationalistic pride or heart.
First thing right off the bat I will give you some background of some of my experiences. I am still serving in the Canadian military. My first 9 years was in the 1st Bat’l PPCLI in Calgary and I also did a two-year tour in Petawawa with the Canadian Airborne Regiment part of 2 Commando.
I have been to the Middle East 4 times and I have trained and worked with soldiers from the following countries: US, British, Israeli, Syrian, Japanese, Polish, Austrian and Slovakian.

Generalizations for some,

US soldiers: the first soldiers I trained with where up in Alaska in January of 81. They called themselves the Manchu’s or something like that. I forget their Regimental # but they did have battle honours from Vietnam. They where lacking in their winter warfare through no fault of there own. I blame that on poor leadership. There is a big winter exercise up in Alaska every year I can’t remember the name of the exercise. I was in Recce Platoon at the time in an observation det. Make a long story short. One American soldier said to us (remember this was during the Cold War) “I sure am glad you guys are on our side”. I felt sorry for them because these guys belonged to a unit from California who were flown up for the exercise an expected to function in a combat environment with no acclimatization. Other soldiers I have had the pleasure to work with where from Red Horse units. I belong to the Canadian equivalent now (Construction Engineers). Great guys highly skilled and great to be around. Soldier from the US would not be my first choice for the poll. But my first choice for friends.

Israeli soldiers: the soldiers I came across in the Middle East came in two categories. Very young and very old with hardly anything in between. I would talk to them every day when I crossed into Syria. The young soldiers for the most part didn’t even want to put on a uniform. They where not happy about conscription. The older soldiers where lifers, highly professional, proud and a tad cocky. Israeli soldiers would not be my first choice either.

Japanese soldiers: I honestly did not know what to think of these guys when they got to the mission area in 97 or 99 I can’t remember. We soon got to know them very well. We even eat in the same mess hall. It was really nice because when you go in the chow line as some like to call it you have your choice of authentic Japanese food or our stuff. I read books only on WWII history so I had some background into their past. I was immediately struck by their work ethic, sense of duty and above all honour towards duty. Their unarmed combat skills are maintained and consistent. They still consider using the bayonet, longest I have seen from any country. To make a long story short I would say Japan has the best military man for man hands down.

Note to the “Know it alls”. I am probably just wasting my time with this last part. Don’t criticize something you know nothing about. Especially when it comes to the Canadian military because those of us still serving on this forum do take offence.
 

Marines

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
0
Location
Surrounded By Commun
Jack said:
First thing right off the bat I will give you some background of some of my experiences. I am still serving in the Canadian military. My first 9 years was in the 1st Bat’l PPCLI in Calgary and I also did a two-year tour in Petawawa with the Canadian Airborne Regiment part of 2 Commando.
I have been to the Middle East 4 times and I have trained and worked with soldiers from the following countries: US, British, Israeli, Syrian, Japanese, Polish, Austrian and Slovakian.

Generalizations for some,

US soldiers: the first soldiers I trained with where up in Alaska in January of 81. They called themselves the Manchu’s or something like that. I forget their Regimental # but they did have battle honours from Vietnam. They where lacking in their winter warfare through no fault of there own. I blame that on poor leadership. There is a big winter exercise up in Alaska every year I can’t remember the name of the exercise. I was in Recce Platoon at the time in an observation det. Make a long story short. One American soldier said to us (remember this was during the Cold War) “I sure am glad you guys are on our side”. I felt sorry for them because these guys belonged to a unit from California who were flown up for the exercise an expected to function in a combat environment with no acclimatization. Other soldiers I have had the pleasure to work with where from Red Horse units. I belong to the Canadian equivalent now (Construction Engineers). Great guys highly skilled and great to be around. Soldier from the US would not be my first choice for the poll. But my first choice for friends.

Israeli soldiers: the soldiers I came across in the Middle East came in two categories. Very young and very old with hardly anything in between. I would talk to them every day when I crossed into Syria. The young soldiers for the most part didn’t even want to put on a uniform. They where not happy about conscription. The older soldiers where lifers, highly professional, proud and a tad cocky. Israeli soldiers would not be my first choice either.

Japanese soldiers: I honestly did not know what to think of these guys when they got to the mission area in 97 or 99 I can’t remember. We soon got to know them very well. We even eat in the same mess hall. It was really nice because when you go in the chow line as some like to call it you have your choice of authentic Japanese food or our stuff. I read books only on WWII history so I had some background into their past. I was immediately struck by their work ethic, sense of duty and above all honour towards duty. Their unarmed combat skills are maintained and consistent. They still consider using the bayonet, longest I have seen from any country. To make a long story short I would say Japan has the best military man for man hands down.

Note to the “Know it alls”. I am probably just wasting my time with this last part. Don’t criticize something you know nothing about. Especially when it comes to the Canadian military because those of us still serving on this forum do take offence.
Great post! While I do disagree somewhat, most of what you said is correct.

I have trained and served in combat alongside the Brits, Canadians, Spaniards, Italians, Croatians, Egyptians, Georgians and the French (Foreign Legion).

The current American soldier is in my opinion not the best in the world and hasn't been for some time. The fervor of political correctness that has lambasted the Army has degraded its fighting ability and its morale as a whole. This can easily be seen when in their company as they are highly undisciplined and prone to mouthing off to officers, NCO'S and SNCO's.

No offense is meant to those who have and still do serve in the US Army. These are my observations and the observations of others.

The British soldier and most defiantly the British Marine are a totally different topic. They are direct and the point, highly motivated and patriotic and steadfast in determination. They are quiet possibly the most professional group soldiers I have had the privilege to serve with.

The French :rolleyes: . Talk about a group of people who really have nothing better to do other than sit around and drink packaged wine.

However this does not include the Foreign Legion. I have never seen a group of men (mostly Brits & Americans) who take their role so seriously. They are the definition of the word tenacious in every sense. I would honestly never like to face these guys in combat.

The Canucks. I had the honor to serve with your nations soldiers in Kosovo. Canadian soldiers are very professional and always do what is told of them without a single bicker or complaint. You do at times fall short on motivation and this can be attributed to your constant deployment under the UN. Many of your soldiers voiced their complaints to myself and others in my unit and often said it was a failure of your own foreign policy.

If I had a choice of who I wanted alongside myself in a fight it would be the Brits, Canucks, Aussies and Kiwis.

But of course the US and British Royal Marines are the BEST! :D
 
Last edited:

Marines

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
0
Location
Surrounded By Commun
Terry Patterson said:
marines,i agree with what you've said.that troubles me,but i agree.i have served closely with brits in my past,true soldiers!
"That troubles me..."

What do you mean by that? My previous statement about the US Army?

The Brits and the Canadians are a great fighting force. As I said they are some of the most professional soldiers in the world.
 

Marines

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
0
Location
Surrounded By Commun
Terry Patterson said:
what is the problem as you see it?
The Clinton presidency ultimately destroyed American soldier. In fact it began with Bush Sr. and traveled down the tubes from there.

As of now their bootcamp is a complete joke and is nothing what it used to be. Everything is now looked upon as "I hope we don't get sued" or that of "...we must please everyone" attitude. This is prevalent in almost every aspect in the US Army.

Political correctness rules the day there and in my opinion has degraded their ability to function as a cohesive entity.
 

Jack Dionne

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
933
Reaction score
2
Location
Winnipeg, Canada
Country
llCanada
Becoming a trend

Marines said:
The Clinton presidency ultimately destroyed American soldier. In fact it began with Bush Sr. and traveled down the tubes from there.

As of now their bootcamp is a complete joke and is nothing what it used to be. Everything is now looked upon as "I hope we don't get sued" or that of "...we must please everyone" attitude. This is prevalent in almost every aspect in the US Army.

Political correctness rules the day there and in my opinion has degraded their ability to function as a cohesive entity.
Unfortunately this political correctness is becoming a trend in all Western militaries.
 

Panzer-War

Member
Joined
May 12, 2003
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
Location
Louisiana
Country
llUnited States
BarcelonaBlom said:
1. Germany- They've always been top in tank design and still are (where do you think ours came from). They have a very strong and well trained army but put the size and government factor in and I would rank Germany last.
If our tank came from germany we would have the leapord II not the M1 Abrams. Both tanks can trace origins to the MBT-70, a joint U.S. And the then West Germany project(MBT-70 Images attached below). The later Abrams do use a 120mm smoothbore gun designed by Rheinmetall Corporation of Germany and manufactured under license in the US by General Dynamics.

The M1 Abrams
Designed in the 1970's by the Land Systems Division of the General Dynamics Corporation in response to the U.S. Army's MBT-70 program, the first M1 rolled off the assembly line in 1978. After two years of acceptance trials, the first of these vehicles was delivered to the US Army on February 28, 1980. By 1985, evaluations of field service had prompted the first modification requests, and production shifted to the M1A1. The first M1A1's were delivered to units in August of 1985. The Army has converted 368 older M1s to M1A2s. An additional 580 M1s are being upgraded to A2s under a five-year contract awarded in FY1996, with a total of 998 M1 upgrades planned. In 1999 the Army began upgrading M1s to the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) configuration. The SEP embeds digitization capabilities inside the Abrams’ electronic architecture, eliminating the requirement for electronic appliques.
The MBT-70
The MBT-70 was a joint US and West German program started in 1963 to replace the M-60. The tank featured an auto-loading 152mm gun which would fire anti-tank missiles at a range up to 5,200 meters or armor piercing rounds closer in. The tank also featured spaced armor and a laser rangefinder. In addition to a machine gun, the tank had a remotely controlled 20mm gun which was stored in the turret when not in use. The crew of three stayed in the turret for nuclear, chemical, and biological protection. The driver would be in a separate capsule on the left of the turret which kept him facing forward as the turret rotated, which often made him sick. The suspension was hydraulic and able to change the height and hull angle of the tank.

It was hoped the tank would stay in service into the 1990s, but only twelve prototypes were built. The Germans were rightfully suspicious of the combination gun and missile launcher, and Congress was annoyed at the increasing costs of the program, with prices of over $1 million per tank expected by 1970.
 

Dicke Bertha

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
1,567
Reaction score
2
Location
Stockholm
Country
llSweden
Jon@lbc said:
Doctor Sinister I bet your private army could thrash all these armies put together
Is there really such a thing, or is it working from within? If there is such a thing, badmouthing or obstructing your sinister officer is of course a secure ticket to death.

I don't know which army is the best, but in a level fight, I would imagine it requires superior discipline and initiative, at every level. Ask yourself: does the army (=concscripts, professionals or both) of my country have this?

There goes one, there another, and there... I of course know the ultimate answer! :)

While it is true that Germany of today is not Germany of WW2, this is also true of every other army. So can we agree the Germans (and the ever underestimated Japs ! thanks for that input) will still kick some serious and disproportionate arse?! ;)
 
Top