The Best Armies in the World

[Disaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realize that this is the plan that has always been raised for a successful defense of Israel, but my suspicions are that this hides a weakness more than it boasts of resources it can assemble. That is, in order to fend off against a possible coalition of armies, it HAS to mobilize most of its fighting age people.

Before you strike this as a fallacy, let me first say that Israel is vulnerable to protracted conflict, a cost of which cannot be borne by a society that is totally mobilized. If everyone is mobilized, most of the effective work force cannot be used for industry to keep the economy going. The longer a conflict or state of war exists, the more resources are used, even if no actual heavy fighting takes place. Sure, everyone who can raise a rifle is an advantage. But industry has to supply the bullets.

For that reason Israel has supported its domestic arms industry. But that industry is more devoted to exports of high technology rather than its initial purpose of extending Israel's warfighting ability.

At the same time, Israel's past and present enemies have all modernized their forces, and some even have similar technologies. Professionalism, also, is not just the preserve of Israel. Of its neighbours, Egypt and Turkey are more than able to hurt Israel. Of course both are allies, for that reason. This Israel has done because it can't afford to face a combined Arab Legion again. But we are talking hypothetical conflicts here. Hence the discussion is titled "Best Armies in the World".

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I know from talking with young people from Israel and from my personal reading, I think this spirit has gradually been replaced by inner conflicts, a desire to get on with business, and a generation gap. Israel's society is far from homogenous with the entry of Jews from Africa, former Soviet immigrants, and the development of the fundamentalist Jews who are now causing all sorts of trouble in the occupied territories.

The days when the youth went out to be indoctrinated in Kibbutzes is over.

These conflicts have not only resulted in political instability in the Knesset, but are symptomatic of larger cultural schisms that weaken the resolve of Israel as a military force. Fundamentalist Jews (lots who came from America!), for example, do not allow their young to serve in the military, which leads to resentment from those who do. Many reformist Jews resent the settlers for refusing to budge on land in favour of peace with the Palestinians. The immigrants from Russia and Africa have felt discrimination and themselves have formed political and cultural groups that agitate against the more established powers in Israeli society.

I've already pointed out that many young people feel that there are other ways to get ahead in society besides the military, including Israel's burgeoning tech industries.

Many were too young to remember when Israel was actually under threat from its neighbours in an organized way. Lebanon was an offensive war for Israel. Except for isolated terrorist acts, the Intifada, and the few rockets that were launched from Iraq, Israel has largely been at peace with its neighbours. The Intifada and Lebanon, you pointed out, were negative experiences for its citizen soldiers.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no doubt that these elite groups are among the highest trained in the world, especially given Israel's stance on terrorism.

[This message has been edited by Disaster (edited 07-27-2000).]

[IDF]

Ethan,

The Golani Brigade are just part of the regular infantry fighting units. The three fighting units are the Golani, Givati and Tzanchanim (paratroopers). The Golani is based in the north, Givati south and Tzanchanim in the centre section of Israel.

The Tzaeret Matkal are pretty good. But the most elite unit is the shyaetet 13. They are the equivalent of the Navy seals, the only difference is that they **** all over the seals. Basic training for this unit is 2 years!!!! and you must committ to the army for at least 5 years. As opposed to regular service of 3 years.

One of the main problems with the IDF in general is the lack of discipline, this is one of its weaknesses besides the fact that it is run by a communist governement who supports the enemy more than their own people!!!

Yes Disaster I am one of those 'fundamental Jews" who believes that Israel belongs to Jews. If you have ever read the Bible you will see that G-d promised to give the Land of Israel SOLEY to the Jews and those willing to expect this fact. Surrendering land for nothing to terrorists is NOT on. Not to mention the grave life and death danger which will result for thousands of Jews living in those territiores

[This message has been edited by IDF (edited 07-27-2000).]

[Fionn]

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

I agree. That's why i was careful to put in a caveat in my post that IF America was ever convinced of the need to fight a war for its own survival then it would fight to the bitter end....

Personally I think Clinton has committed the US to far too many small wars which are non-essential and has humbled the US internationally when a few casualties have forced him and his to pull out. It makes the US look weak and a bit of a laughing stock..

Now, I and others know it isn't BUT I'm just saying that is how it comes across to most civies.

[Guest Pillar]

IDF,

Keep in mind the other party involved also has a "bible" that says the land is theirs.

[Disaster]

IDF, we are talking strategy here. How do you propose that your isolated settlements survive in the longterm surrounded by Arabs given that many of your fellow citizens are tired of supporting your cause?

Also the Palestinians are not just playing around. They seem to want a piece of the land as much as you. Realistically, how will you deal with them?

Without resorting to mass destruction, how does Israel propose to survive in the middle of an Arab dominated Middle East?

[Holdit]

"Keep in mind the other party involved also has a "bible" that says the land is theirs."

Not to mention that the bible isn't a legal document in any case.

[mensch]

I must say that most armies are willing to make sacrifices when needed, in the cost of materials and troops.. but the army is as strong as its support at home, if an army is taking terrible losses, the army and goverment looses support from its people at home.. ok unless your Russia or so (Afganistan) but also America (Vietnam)..

I mean look at the Gulf War (dont get me wrong here guys) The "Allies" were cleaning house with Mr. "I got no brains in my head" Sadam. Support was strong and everyone (almost everyone) was giving thumbs up, but the day a Scud landed on those quarters where many GI's were hooched in.. the mood back in the states changed (shock, anger and naturaly fear of there boys overseas) even more so when pictures from the iraqi highway of hell was pasted all over the world in newspapers and tv.

The people at home started saying ok.. i think we have him beat. no one in thier right mind likes to see a brutal slaughter, doesn't matter which side is doing it. (im not going to go on the disscussion should have we taken it all the way to Bagdad or not story.. someone else can carry this thread if they want)

Im not going into wrongs or rights or what army did what, war is hell nothing more both sides will do anything to win a war (winners tend to hide what they did and exploit what the losers did and vise versa), end.

In the end I guess, No support at home gives the Government and Army less options in what to do. (evil mix who controls what) and this reduces the effectiveness of the army. Unless you put a total news ban on the war and only do real hardcore propaganda campaign, but thats another story..

ok now that I properly put my foot in my mouth

toodles

[Guest Bloodlust]

well as a former infantry soldier in the New Zealand army i can say NZ infantry is one of the better infantrys around (though i guess no army says that "yes we kinda suck at fighting"

i think you will find that most of the doctrine for close country infantry tactics used by the world was devolped by the NZ army during the bourneo and malaysian conflicts....for example the trianguler habour at night.

if you check out the contacts iniatied by enemy/contact initiated by us ratio and the enemy death to soldier death ratio...i think you will find that NZ comes out on top

a really good book on the NZ infantry in vietnam is called "deep green" i cant remember author though as i read it years ago.....as for fitness ....yes even our own PT instructors said the yank soldier upper body strength was generally better than ours.........though we had much better legs (as we used to pack march just about everywhere cause our apcs are shyte.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Hang on Bloodlust....you can't count contact with sheep as contact with the enemy! Everyone knows you lovw those guys, even if they're in Borneo, Malaysia wherever!

And I bet you never guessed I was Australian right?

Regards

Jim R.

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

What's that! Is that the spluttering sound of a 700 HP Maybach diesel engine? Oh SH*T....Panther!

[Mannheim Tanker]

Fionn: You've made an excellent point regarding brush-fire wars and waning public interest in the face of high casualties. I think your conclusions are right on the mark. However, this doesn't address the question of which country has the best army. You are addressing the political conditions of the country, and not the military itself. I realize that these two elements are inseparable, but one could make the same argument for most western societies, and possible others as well.

So to return to the original question, ceteres paribus (sp?) - with equal public backing - , which army is the best?

Best,

MT

[Guest Mirage2k]

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

Yes Disaster I am one of those 'fundamental Jews" who believes that Israel belongs to Jews. If you have ever read the Bible you will see that G-d promised to give the Land of Israel SOLEY to the Jews and those willing to expect this fact. Surrendering land for nothing to terrorists is NOT on. Not to mention the grave life and death danger which will result for thousands of Jews living in those territiores<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would be surrendering land for peace. That sounds like a fair trade to me. Realistically, if you want lasting peace in the region, it's safe to say that Israel will have to give up some territory. I don't claim to be "in the know," but I think that most Israelis can see that, even some of those who live in the disputed regions.

Also, interestingly, this had better happen soon, because the ailing Yassir Arafat is actually fairly moderate compared to some of his followers.

But back to the original question on who's got the best gun-wielding, ground-pounding men/women in uniform. I've decided to arbitrarily break it down by region, just 'cause I feel like it.

North America: USA (obviously)

South America: I have no idea. Someone with more knowledge of South American militaries can jump in here if they wish.

Western Europe: Great Britain, if talking about Western Europe as a whole. If not, see below.

Western Europe (Continental): France

Eastern Europe: Russian Republic

Northern Africa/Mediterranean: No real idea. I'm tempted to say Egypt, but I'm not sure if they are considered to be more in the Middle East.

Central Africa: No real idea. Anyone wanna step in?

Southern Africa: South Africa

Middle East: Israel

Asia (Subcontinent): India

East Asia: China, and still moving up.

Australia: Australia (I guess it's good to be your own continent)

Antarctica: The Frowning Hordes of Peng

Well, that about wraps it up. Disagreements/quarrels/threats/supplements are welcome.

-Andrew

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

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[This message has been edited by Mirage2k (edited 07-27-2000).]

[dalem]

Mannheim-

I think the original question is a little broad. The 'best' at exactly what?

Fighting a localized brush war? Probably not the U.S. (for the good reasons Fionn has pointed out).

Fighting a 'real' war (a la "come out and fight like a man!")? Definitely the U.S.

Burying someone in arms and legs? Well, China.

-dale

[Fionn]

With equal public backing I'd have to say that the USA is very close. I'm just a little suspicious of an army which relies so heavily on technology though. I just have a gut feeling that the US is so inculcated with the doctrine of utilising firepower and technology to win at a minimum cost that an enemy who purposely seeks to avoid conflicts in which the US can utilise its firepower and technology advantages and seeks to bring things down to infantry on infantry warfare could still defeat the US Army.

(IOW I think that the civie attitude to casualties etc is also mirrored in the minds of US privates etc. )

I think I'd probably have to opt for a nation like Germany or Israel or Britain. In all cases these nations ARE casualty-conscious but are less so than America and have close to the American level of technology and available weapons.

I think America's own success has ensured no-one is going to try to fight a conventional war with tanks and APCs and IFVs against it in the near future. That very success is pushing enemies to plan for the kind of war which I feel US infantrymen and their public aren't willing to engage in.

So, I'd jump for Israel or Germany or Britain. I don't think the Israeli army is as good as many make it out to be since it faced some pretty poor opposition at times BUT it is good enough.

[dumbo]

Holdit:"Not to mention that the bible isn't a legal document in any case."

This one made me chuckle dude. Nice one.

[Guest herbjorn]

Fionn

Germany has a conscript army, right? Whereas Britain has a smaller, albeit non-conscript army. Wouldn`t the average British soldier have been training for several years more than a conscript German soldier?

[PeterNZer]

A few random comments because I'm a random guy.

On IDF. Yeah, cool, interesting comments, but yer mad if you intend basing your entire foreign policy on the bible! "we're right cos it says so here so stop being mean to us!" just doesn't really cut it in diplomacy does it!

As for Tom Clancy. Must admit i've been a little bored with his recent offerings. I really liked Rainbow 6, but damn it, noone on the goodies side ever dies! And America saves the day, yay. Anyway, I also loved his comment in Rainbow 6 about the worlds elite special forces, "the only difference between them tends to come down to who ate what for breakfast that day". In other words, they're all pretty close in skill. I'd possibly give the SAS a slight edge because they seem to regularly end up in a fight somewhere in the world. NZ lends our SAS to the English so we don't have serving soldiers hehe

NZ army would be quite good, but I think Morale is low due to a lack of money, (we're only a tiny country population wise) and generally the armed forces here have **** equipment. Although they do like to test equipment from overseas, I heard they got a HumVee to tow a huge artillery piece, but then broke the axel driving it over a hill or something. Nevermind, it was free

Anyway, CM arrives in the next week or so!

And then my pc, so we can finish this movie, haha!

PeterNZ

[Disaster@work]

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

Fionn

Germany has a conscript army, right? Whereas Britain has a smaller, albeit non-conscript army. Wouldn`t the average British soldier have been training for several years more than a conscript German soldier?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany last month began instituting more reforms aimed at downsizing its army and replacing the conscript system. It does have elite large formations (especially the one that maneuvers with the French) so they are trying to rationalize their army to be more mobile and compact.

[Fionn]

Well the German Army has a core of regular units.. I was basing my comparison on those. In the same way I don't consider National Guard or Territorial Army units for the British and Americans.

Generally though I just think that the German Army ( while it might look less than tough right now) can't be discounted given their history. They're tough little SOBs.

[Disaster@work]

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

You would be surrendering land for peace. That sounds like a fair trade to me. Realistically, if you want lasting peace in the region, it's safe to say that Israel will have to give up some territory. I don't claim to be "in the know," but I think that most Israelis can see that, even some of those who live in the disputed regions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It certainly is important to take that step. Israel isn't secure anyway. Any sustained drive will bisect the country in two or mess it up so badly it will take a decade to rebuild. For that country, it has come to the point that it can only be secure in stable relations with its neighbours. Which is the way all countries should act. It is the same with personal security. Any of my coworkers can come into my office and shoot me. I can't stop it. Arming myself wouldn't help if I didn't see it coming. Being always on alert would cause me to be less productive and always fearful. So I choose to believe in good relations with others around me.

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

South America: I have no idea. Someone with more knowledge of South American militaries can jump in here if they wish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's tough to say because all of these countries' militaries are devoted to internal security. In the past, however, the Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil all had hostile relations with each other. You have to say that Argentina and Brazil have the resources to be the greatest threats. Certainly, Argentina gained valuable lessons when it tangled with the British. Argentina could have done better with what they had. Colombia right now has major backing from the U.S. for the so-called war on drugs. This includes training for elite forces.

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

Western Europe (Continental): France<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with France for now because French soldiers have extensive experience in peacekeeping and also in interventions in Africa. Its commanders are also quite aggressive, even in peacekeeping operations. I would say they are even more interventionary than the U.S., but only insofar as French interests are concerned. A resurgent German army certainly has the goods, but their experience in active operations will be constrained by the EU, as they lack territories and interests overseas.

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

Eastern Europe: Russian Republic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except for armies in Africa, no armed forces is now currently engaged in high intensity conflict as much as the Russians.

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

Northern Africa/Mediterranean: No real idea. I'm tempted to say Egypt, but I'm not sure if they are considered to be more in the Middle East.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting question. It depends who Egypt is fighting at the time Anyway, their armed forces as a whole are the regional superpower, barring Israel. Egypt's forces are technologically superior to most it will likely array against including Libya and Sudan.

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

Central Africa: No real idea. Anyone wanna step in? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nigeria. At least their soldiers aren't 12 year olds. That whole area is a total mess. Rwanda has been flexing its muscles a lot, though.

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

Middle East: Israel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Israel is certainly very strong but they rely a lot on technology and their reserves. As I said before, both Turkey and Egypt are strong both technologically but also in terms of manpower. Turkey, specifically, has an extremely modern air force, NATO resources to draw on, and isn't afraid to show its strength against Greece, Iraq, Syria, or its Kurdish separatists. Turkey has a legitimate navy, as opposed to Israel's coastal force. Of course Turkish forces get plenty of seasoning trying to keep down the Kurds, who aren't much of a threat these days.

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

Asia (Subcontinent): India<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No argument there. Without nuclear weapons, India would wipe the floor with Pakistan. Pakistan's air defenses and air force are a joke. Geographically, Pakistan has no depth to defend.

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

East Asia: China, and still moving up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the size of China's forces are an issue here. Compared to the sophisticated systems used by Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan and Japan, China can't touch them. Its forces are too unwieldy and its industry not yet up to snuff to match the systems of its neighbours. Any Chinese attack in any direction north, east or south would be an embarassing failure. China has already tangled with Vietnam and found them a hard enemy.

[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-27-2000).]

[Krono]

I wasnt thinking at all about the Finnish Army in my earlier post. I know several Finns online who serve in the Finnish Armed Forces and must say that I have a great respect for them. Finland has never had the support of Western Allies and the people ive talked too said that should a conflict errupt in Russia several years down the road, Finland wouldnt be able to count on anyone but herself,and i beleive this is true. Every able bodied man is required to serve in the Army and their training programs last months longer then USMC training, very extensive indeed.

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

The Golani Brigade are just part of the regular infantry fighting units. The three fighting units are the Golani, Givati and Tzanchanim (paratroopers). The Golani is based in the north, Givati south and Tzanchanim in the centre section of Israel.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You sound like you know what you're talking about, so I'll take your word for it regarding current force structure in the IDF. I know a couple of people who served in Golani, however, and they had their jump boots, and considered themselves part of an elite unit. One of them subsequently transferred to a reserve unit of the Tsayeret when he finished his hitch.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Tzaeret Matkal are pretty good. But the most elite unit is the shyaetet 13. They are the equivalent of the Navy seals, the only difference is that they **** all over the seals. Basic training for this unit is 2 years!!!! and you must committ to the army for at least 5 years. As opposed to regular service of 3 years.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, it seems that many of them are now suffering the aftereffects of training in the virulently toxic Kishon river. The water there changes color according to which factory is dumping what toxin into it. Disgraceful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One of the main problems with the IDF in general is the lack of discipline, this is one of its weaknesses besides the fact that it is run by a communist governement who supports the enemy more than their own people!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you, but let's not go there in this thread, as it will draw a lot of fire, all of it OT.

Kol ha'Kavod

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

I realize that this is the plan that has always been raised for a successful defense of Israel, but my suspicions are that this hides a weakness more than it boasts of resources it can assemble. That is, in order to fend off against a possible coalition of armies, it HAS to mobilize most of its fighting age people.

Before you strike this as a fallacy, let me first say that Israel is vulnerable to protracted conflict, a cost of which cannot be borne by a society that is totally mobilized. If everyone is mobilized, most of the effective work force cannot be used for industry to keep the economy going. The longer a conflict or state of war exists, the more resources are used, even if no actual heavy fighting takes place. Sure, everyone who can raise a rifle is an advantage. But industry has to supply the bullets.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just a description of the strategic reality facing Israel and Israel has to plan accordingly. Hence the focus on technological superiority. The entire population has to be mobilized because Israel has only 4 million people (including potentially hostile, non-com Israeli Arabs) while the Arab world has two orders of magnitude more manpower on which to draw. Many people who don't pay close attention to the Middle East don't realize how tiny Israel is compared to its declared and potential enemies.

There is no doubt that Israel relies on beating or at least halting its enemies quickly, and depends on the US for a rapid re-supply if the situation gets that bad.

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

For that reason Israel has supported its domestic arms industry. But that industry is more devoted to exports of high technology rather than its initial purpose of extending Israel's warfighting ability.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Israel makes abundant use of its own arms. And you can be pretty sure that they have a lot of stuff they are not advertising to the Ecuadorians.

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

At the same time, Israel's past and present enemies have all modernized their forces, and some even have similar technologies. Professionalism, also, is not just the preserve of Israel. Of its neighbours, Egypt and Turkey are more than able to hurt Israel. Of course both are allies, for that reason. This Israel has done because it can't afford to face a combined Arab Legion again. But we are talking hypothetical conflicts here. Hence the discussion is titled "Best Armies in the World".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hardly call Egypt an 'ally' of Israel's. The peace between them is cool and growing colder by the minute. The Egyptian press, which is government control, constantly agitates against Israel, Zionism, and Jews in general. Sadat made peace with Israel because it suited his purposes; Mubarak maintains peace for the same reason. In the meantime, Egyptian has re-armed at the expense of the American taxpayer. Those forces could be turned against Israel at a moments notice.

Turkey is rather different. It is not part of the Arab world and hasn't been since it came into the modern age. It shares clear strategic interests with Israel, e.g., Syria and Iraq, and has a more modern economy that is benefiting immensely from cordial relations with Israel.

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[dumbo]

"Egyptian has re-armed at the expense of the American taxpayer. "

I think you can also say

Israel has re-armed at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I beleive the split is 20 billion a year in aid to Eqypt and 25 billion to Israel if I recall correctly.

cheers

_dumbo

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

"Egyptian has re-armed at the expense of the American taxpayer. "

I think you can also say

Israel has re-armed at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I beleive the split is 20 billion a year in aid to Eqypt and 25 billion to Israel if I recall correctly.

cheers

_dumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but Israel is a democracy and a long-time ally of the United States that has provided vital logistic, intelligence and technological support to the US. Egypt is a dictatorshipa and a former Soviet client.

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[dumbo]

Ethan: Well Eqypt is a corrupt democracy not really a dictatorship.

America maybe Israels ally but I am not sure the other way around is the case (arms shipments to China and N Korea, numerous Isreali spys operating inside US intelligence agencies etc).

The US's attititude towards Israel is based on the influence of the jewish vote in the states, now arab americans outnumber jewish americans you have to wonder how long it will be last.

Not that I am particularly bothered either way (I certainly have much sympathy for the jewish plight throughout history) but hopefully one day in my lifetime technology will make the oilfeilds of the middle east irrelevant and it can resume its rightful place in the world , some patch of desert we can all saftely ignore.