The Best Armies in the World

[Guest Pillar]

To the Grogs:

The US Army obviously has the greatest technological advantage over other armies in the world, however, what about troop quality and training methods?

I'm wondering what the most highly trained army in the world is, how they do it, and if they have a website. (Hopefully one I'll be able to access lol).

Bullethead mentioned in another post that Clinton has reduced the training efforts of the US.Army considerably.

I'm really curious how the other countries stand up.

I have this suspicion that there is some extremely elite army training in South America or some other relatively small country. They'd have small numbers and probably older technology, but the training would be there.

Anyone know anything about this stuff?

Thanks.

- Pillar

[Mace]

I don't know whether this is national pride talking or not, but I think the Australian and New Zealand defence forces are quite capable!

I would say that our SAS is up there with the best!

Check out http://www.dod.gov.au/index.html

Mace

[Fionn]

Whichever army is willing to take the casualties involved in a proper hard-fought war.

An army is NO GOOD if no-one is willing to commit it and suffer losses.

A little brush army could defeat the US if it simply focussed on casualty-intensive operations. Technology is nice etc but it is as nothing if not backed up with an iron will to commit one's army and accept the necessary losses.

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn:A little brush army could defeat the US if it simply focussed on casualty-intensive operations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn,

Not to get off topic, but do you really think the US isn't willing to take losses? I would agree that in most foreign conflicts, the US has a very small limit, (as it should imho).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mace:I don't know whether this is national pride talking or not, but I think the Australian and New Zealand defence forces are quite capable!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mace, is the Australian Army one of the forces involved in combatting that militia group run by two 12 year olds (or whatever their age was)?

[Disaster@work]

Even after cutbacks no one spends more time training, thinking over doctrine, experimenting than the Americans. There are many factors beyond technology that distinguish U.S. preparation. While the U.S. may fall behind other nations in individual categories, all of them taken as a whole show the U.S. to be the number one force presently.

- Physical fitness - there is a large body of knowledge developed by the U.S. armed forces in methods of developing fitness. This doesn't mean that they put out supermen who can march naked through the Antarctic. Nor do they drill their soldiers into doing more jumping jacks than any other nation's armed forces. Rather, their methodology mirrors strides in basic medicine and sports medicine in the private sector that bring up the general fitness level of their soldiers.

- Military science - Again, this is an area where both military, ex-military, and paramilitary institutions combine to provide the U.S. with up to date and advanced doctrine. While there are plenty of examples where inertia inherent in such a large and varied collection of forces results in embarassing failures in doctrine, the U.S. devotes tons of time in educating their officers on tactics. The sheer number of officers, ex-officers and researchers who engage in dialogues on strategy dwarfs many standing armies. All of this also underlies an education system for officers, technical personnel and support personnel that is a major advantage over many countries who lack an education system for civilians to begin with [of course, some may argue that there is such a thing as 'too much thinking']. The extensive Reserve and National Guard system also keeps into circulation a large number of these educated people.

- No army in this century has been to more areas of the world than the United States in either observer status or as organized participants. Let's face it. The U.S. is the loose global empire of our time. Everyone it sends out brings back knowledge of how to fight (and how not to fight) in whatever corner of the world they were sent to. No matter how well drilled a soldier is, if they haven't been somewhere to fight, they don't know what to expect. Even from American failures, such as Somalia, they have learned important lessons. Has this mythical South American elite force been to the arctic?

- basic skills. American soldiers can generally read, write and communicate with each other. Most can probably drive a car, use a radio and operate basic machinery. They are trained in personal hygiene and at least have access to livesaving information. Quibble all you want about whether this is going up or down, many armies can't boast even these.

[Aacooper]

To respond to Pillar's question, the Australians are definitely not combating the 12yr olds, I believe (IIRC) they're in Cambodia.

[Guest Pillar]

Good points Disaster.

Do you know where I can find resources on the physical fitness training of the US Army? I'm 19 and work out/run, but I'd like to tweak my routine to match what the Army has established. Tried and true

Please don't say www.army.mil

(I think everyone knows my problem with that by now hehe)

[Guest Mirage2k]

The Israeli army is supposed to be pretty good, though I've heard that they're somewhat overrated.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Good points Disaster.

Do you know where I can find resources on the physical fitness training of the US Army? I'm 19 and work out/run, but I'd like to tweak my routine to match what the Army has established. Tried and true

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to flip through this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0809229021/o/qid=964652274/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-4415201-4892606

It's the Navy Seal Workout.

I tried this out for a few weeks and found myself not much of a superman. You're probably asking the wrong person fitness questions. But I picked three of those exercises and found they helped reduce some love handlish areas on my sad sad body. This book emphasizes running, the jumping jacks, lots of those similar exercises.

There is plenty of criticism of this book, though. Such as, the running with army boots on. My thoughts are, it's better to do something than nothing.

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k:

The Israeli army is supposed to be pretty good, though I've heard that they're somewhat overrated.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most modern armies have 'elite forces' which are probably comparable to each other. However, for the regular army, I would say that the Israeli army has both an advantage and a disadvantage.

As we all know, Israel has fought a number of wars the latter half of the 20th century. Therefore, it would safe to assume that the level of experience for many commanders is high. However, the Israeli army suffers from its conscript status of much of its forces. That is, many people who are forced to fight rather than ones who choose it as a profession. While this would probably lead to a general improvement in basic skills for the population at large, for the standing army this constant rotation of people who would rather be doing something else can't be good. Also, most of the Israeli army is engaged in policing, not in warfighting. Remember that their last major war (Lebanon) was almost twenty years ago and the only remnants of that experience are either in the upper echelons or quit. Lebanon was also a negative experience for most line troops.

[dumbo]

This is a very good question.

In the first place I agree with Fionn that national determination can overcome some handicaps although the Serbs are a very determined people but folded under a bombardment which they could not fight back against.

Someone mentioned the SAS which I would agree is probably up there as one of if not the best elite unit, but elite units do not make an army and the British Army still suffers from nepotism in its officer class which denies it the ability to promote the most competent officers. While the British ground equipment is OK it isnt as lavish as the US army.

The German army still enjoys a good reputation for leadership and organization, its interesting that thier tank philosophy is somewhat different from the Anglo Americans as well (more maneuverability over armour).

The much maligned french army is quite formidable on paper but I cant comment on the quality of its troops, they seem to have performed at least as well as other allies in peackeeping operations.

The Israeli army remains quite strong for its region, backed by the bravery of desperation (nowhere to retreat to)I still think you would have to bet with them in any future conflict with its nieghbors.

The Vietnamese army is somewhat problematic as the Vietnamese surely have the most incredible record of this century beating France, America and China in battle and also launching a brilliant and devestating invasion of Cambodia.

The Chinese army has had limited success beyond its own borders with the Korean war offensive being a notable exception.

I simply dont beleive the hype of the Russian army is a shambles. The Russians have demostrated time and time again thier skill and tenacity at defending their homeland.

As for the American army I think its main strength is its airpower. It is the most lavishly equipped of all the major armies of the world but I have heard second hand that its internal organization is becoming way too politicized and run more like a corporation than an organziation designed to fight wars. This could be wrong maybe some US servicemen could correct me here.

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 07-26-2000).]

[Brethon]

Well..noones payed much attention to the cartel as of late...if they get their men (yes, they are sexist) to stop snuffing their stuff, they may be formidable...after all, when you fire from the hip since age 5, you have to get good at it by age 25

As for thes best army? (I'm serious now), I think the British may have it. They are tough sods. Not to mention that their field weapon loadout is better then that of most other major countires (like U.S., Canada, Russia, etc.). Besides which they get yearly training in Ireland....

If you want the best special force? Then it's definitely the SAS, i'm not sure what the SAS down-under in Australia is like, but they are probably close to British SAS. (Frankly, I don't see what's so hot about Delta Force...actually, I see them as pretty crappy )

------------------

The worst part of any conflict is peacekeeping, it is the time when only one side may fire.

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brethon:

Well..noones payed much attention to the cartel as of late...if they get their men (yes, they are sexist) to stop snuffing their stuff, they may be formidable...after all, when you fire from the hip since age 5, you have to get good at it by age 25 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FARC (with whom the cartels are aligned) have a credible record against the Colombian regulars. The FARC control quite a bit of the country and have established para-governmental organizations such as courts, schools, depots and clinics. These people are motivated, use both women and men in their fighting force, and have a low tooth to tail ratio as compared with their government adversaries. In another post a couple weeks ago I argued that the U.S. was going to become involved here to a greater extent in the next ten years as the Colombian government is pressured to deal with the drug problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Besides which they get yearly training in Ireland....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well put.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(Frankly, I don't see what's so hot about Delta Force...actually, I see them as pretty crappy )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They certainly would be pretty shell shocked after Somalia.

[Fionn]

Pillar said " Not to get off topic, but do you really think the US isn't willing to take losses? I would agree that in most foreign conflicts, the US has a very small limit, (as it should imho)."

Well obviously the US is willing to take "some" losses. I merely am saying that anyone can defeat the US by simply focussing not on military objectives but on killing and mutilating a few US servicemen. The odds are that the public support for any intervention would collapse after seeing a couple of dozen US soldiers killed. ( The allowance of women in support units is a particular issue here since leaving raped and mutilated corpses of women soldiers will have a greater morale effect on the American people than killing and mutilating an equivalent number of men. )

Generally I think that the problem with the US army ( in a brush war environment) is that public support for its committment is likely to wane once casualties rise. The problem is that in a brush war you're likely to get a lot of infantry fighting where all the high-tech stealth bombers etc aren't going to help out a lot and infantry-fighting guarantees infantry casualties.

I think that any guerilla leader could send a US force packing if he (or she) concentrates simply on destroying public support back home by killing and torturing and mutilating US troops in large numbers. ( personally I think that the mutilation and torture would have the effect of destroying public support for intervention. I know there's a school of thought which feels it would harden resolve but I think that it would cause calls for troops to pulled out to increase whilst also resolving the US to "get" whoever did the torturing etc and putting them in front of war crimes tribunals etc....

I think the problem is that American presidents seem to be committing US troops to countries and causes which the US people simply don't support/see the need for.

IF American had to go to war with someone like North Korea in order to prevent the production of nuke-tipped ICBMs then I'm sure that the populace would accept casualties in the thousands and even the tens of thousands since the rationale is clear to see BUT I think that most foreseeable conflicts won't be seen as essential and thus the US Army can be forced to withdraw due to public pressure. ( I don't think any army in the world could defeat the US Army in the field since it is both technologically advanced and large BUT you don't have to beat the enemy's army to win the war . A devotee of Sun Tzu would see the pressure points which are vulnerable quite easily.

As for Delta Force and other US special forces. What contact I've had with members has left me impressed. One failed operation does not a poor organisation make PLUSwe're talking about armies in general, not elites.

[Brethon]

Disaster@work, have you by chance read 'Clear and present Danger' by Tom Clancy? Because that is persicely what happens (U.S. getting involved with teh cartel. Very good read if I do say so (and who's gonna stop me ).

Fionn, you brought up some good topics. And I must say that for the most part I am in agreeance.

------------------

The worst part of any conflict is peacekeeping, it is the time when only one side may fire.

[Fionn]

A better one is one by Harold Coyle which actually specifically deals with the FARC in Columbia...

Many of the issues of casualties and their unacceptability AND of a guerilla force pursuing a casualty-creative strategy are explored in Coyle's book.

Name is Code of Honour ( it's on my bookshelf beside me).

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Mace, is the Australian Army one of the forces involved in combatting that militia group run by two 12 year olds (or whatever their age was)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pillar, the Australian army will fight anyone! <G>

But seriously, No the two lads were leaders of a Burmese militia who raided in both Burma and Thailand! If I remember correctly this group has been dealt with by the Burmese Military!

Mace

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brethon:

Disaster@work, have you by chance read 'Clear and present Danger' by Tom Clancy? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stopped reading Clancy after the whole military-porn industry became too successful. By military-porn I mean novels salaciously listing up to date military trivia wrapped around poor plotting, jingoism, and obvious outcomes. [On a side note, I think one of the reasons why the Patriot was so successful initially is because it was one story where the U.S. was actually an underdog]

I did watch the movie on video. It was ok. But it doesn't refer at all to the alliance between the political groups and drug lords, which is what is so complicated about the actual situation of the FARC and the cartels.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Disaster@work:

As we all know, Israel has fought a number of wars the latter half of the 20th century. Therefore, it would safe to assume that the level of experience for many commanders is high. However, the Israeli army suffers from its conscript status of much of its forces. That is, many people who are forced to fight rather than ones who choose it as a profession. While this would probably lead to a general improvement in basic skills for the population at large, for the standing army this constant rotation of people who would rather be doing something else can't be good.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One thing to remember is the regular reserve commitment for all eligible Israeli citizens under (IIRC) 35. The reserves are kept pretty sharp at all times and a complete call up of reserves can be done in 72 hours with critical assets ready within 24 -- at least that's the plan w/in the IDF.

As to the "conscript status", you have to remember that Israel has been at war since its creation. Israeli soldiers may be draftees, but they're fighting for their country and their lives against an enemy from whom they can expect no quarter. Also, success in the military is highly correlated with success in greater Israeli society, so young Israelis, esp. men, have a high incentive to perform well during their service.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Also, most of the Israeli army is engaged in policing, not in warfighting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't know about most, but the Intifada and the mess in Lebanon have definitely taken a considerable toll of Israeli morale.

Even so, I'd still take the IDF against any of its likely adversaries, and I'd say that an elite IDF unit like the Golani or the Sayeret Matkal could hold its own against pretty much anyone.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[dalem]

All my opinion, etc., etc....

Fionn typed a bunch but I'll snip

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I merely am saying that anyone can defeat the US by simply focussing not on military objectives but on killing and mutilating a few US servicemen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn-

One needs to remember that one of the reasons we here in the U.S. are generally intolerant of getting our fellow citizens whacked in strange places is that we simply don't think it's worth it.

But don't mistake our underlying attitude. While I believe that most of us here in the U.S. don't want to be involved in a bunch of nasty little fights in the middle of nowhere, I know that as a society we would rather simply pave a whole country from afar than get a single groundpounder killed. Besides, we've learned that it's far more efficient to simply envelop them culturally and economically. If that doesn't work, we can always fall back on plan B, which anyone can study by simply watching the Learning Channel or the Discovery Channel. That's what they have coming for them. And that's the crap that isn't even classified.

A reluctance to get our hands too dirty is not the same as the inability to do so.

I'll be very colloquial with the following, but generally speaking, us Yanks just don't seem to be aware of anyone out there that "needs killin'". When someone insists on making themselves worthy of that kind of notice, bet on a quick and efficient response. We've got all the cool toys and we're always looking for more cool video clips to put on the Discovery Channel.

-dale

[Guest Mirage2k]

I heard somewhere that the South African army is supposed to be pretty sharp (at least compared to its neighbors). IIRC much of their mobile warfighting capability lies in wheeled IFVs and assault vehicles which are well-suited to the terrain in their neck of the woods.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[Krono]

IMHO, the Israeli's or the British have the best overall training in the world. The American Army is in very sorry shape morale-wise and needs a larger budget with the next president.

Thats why we need a president who will actually raise the budget and keep it steady over the years, Clinton/Gore kept plucking funds away from the army in each year in office, and nothing will change if Bore becomes president...

Sorry for inserting a Bush plug but I truely beleive the Army needs a good president to get the Armed Forces back on track, and I think that he is the one to do it.

[Berlichtingen]

Best in the world? Its obvious... The USMC

[Lorak]

Berli....

You have to be a jar head...

Or a squid with a gun.

Which ever you prefer.

Lorak

------------------

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Guest Mirage2k]

Who would trust a squid with a gun? LOL.

-Andrew

------------------

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!