The Best Armies in the World

[marcusm]

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the Nepalese army. With the Gurkhas they would be a fearsome opponent at least in the Himalayas.

Actually Gurkhas are fearsome just about anywhere .

I hope they get modelled later on in the CM series (they fought in North Africa right?)

Marcus

[Mace]

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

Actually Gurkhas are fearsome just about anywhere .

Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, hang on to your ears when fighting those guys.....they collect 'em as souvenirs!

Mace

[argie]

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

quote:

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

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

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some contries analyzed:

Brazil: big numbers both in manpower and weapons. Now in process of "modernization" (for SA standards ) with Leopard 1, and new planes and helicopters. And the Foch also. Conscript army. Good industrial base for developing weapons (MRLs, light aircrafts, AFVs). The big drawback is the conscript army.

Chile: Good weapons. Conscript army. Resolution to fight. Modernizing with Leopard 1 and Gripen airplanes. Moderate weapons industry.

Argentina (my country): Mostly outdated weapons, but some modernized, and all very adequates for their use, both material and doctrinal. Maybe the best doctrine at now in the SA area. Professional army. The armed forces are not more compromised with internal affairs (at least I hope that ). Great experience with UN peacekeeping missions. Is very short in manpower in arms and some of the weapons are obsolets, but when you sees one of those "obsolets" Mirage making a low level passage BEHIND your position at the shore of a river, you knows that the man in it knows what he is doing. All the forces are mechanized, some with the very good TAM (Argentinian Medium Tank) and the AFV family (derived from German's Marder). Very good and tough SFs.

Ecuador and Peru: Both have great Armed Forces for their size as countries. Both were engaged in wars with each other. Maybe the only subsisting interregional conflict at the time. Ecuador have a little advantage in quality, as Peru doctrines were focused in internal wars for a great amount of time.

If I must choose for quality, my bet is for Argentina, maybe Chile or even Colombia. But overall, Brazil is the military power in the area.

Ariel

[dumbo]

Ariel: FWIW I know one British army vet (now retired) from the Falklands/ Malvinas war who pretty much bore out what you say. He certainly had a lot of respect for the Argentinian forces who he encountered.

cheers

_dumbo

[Guest Mirage2k]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>arms shipments to China and N Korea, numerous Isreali spys operating inside US intelligence agencies etc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in the real world, everyone spies on everyone else, so I don't get too worked up over the espionage charges. Israel spies on us, we spy on Israel, China and Russia spy on North Korea, etc.

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

Almost every ethnic/religious group has been the subject of persecution. What makes the Jews different, of course, is the Holocaust of World War II, and the horrifying number of those murdered during that period is the result of the technological "advances" that made it possible.

What makes Israel so tenacious is that they feel no one can protect them but themselves. To a certain extent that is true, but you can be damn sure the rest of the world would not again stand idly by in the face of mass murder, as it did in World War II.

-Andrew

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

Throw me a frickin' smiley, people!

[argie]

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

Ariel: FWIW I know one British army vet (now retired) from the Falklands/ Malvinas war who pretty much bore out what you say. He certainly had a lot of respect for the Argentinian forces who he encountered.

cheers

_dumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, dumbo, having in mind that the British faced a Conscript poorly trained army, the Argentinian Army today is much better. During the Malvinas (sorry, I forgot the another name for the islands ) the doctrine was the National Security doctrine. The officers and NCOs were poorly capacited and trained.

Today, the Army is small, but full professional, with a very good doctrine and not more focused in internal affairs.

If our conscript, poorly indoctrined army do fairly well in 1982, I bet the actual Army could be very effective. I hope we never have to prove it.

Ariel

[guachi]

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

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>

At first glance I thought these numbers were WAY too high. So I went and looked up the US budget online. THe ENTIRE international affairs section of the budget totalled 15,243 million dollars. I don't know where you got your numbers from, but I don't think they are correct.

Also listed were 9,226 million dollars in loan guarantees to Israel with NO new loans for 1999 and none projected for 2000 or 2001. Either you have mis-remembered or somebody was feeding you a line of propoganda.

Aha, even more info from the US government (I LOVE having governemnt documents online):

$2.3 billion in economic aid and $3.5 billion in military aid to the Middle East. So your numbers are inflated by a factor of 10.

Jason

I shall make ALL search engines bow to my will.

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Zamo]

I can only speak from what I know, and I must agree with Berlichtingens astute observation. In any clime and place baby. I am not sure a grand total of four divisions constitutes an "army", but I know of no other unit as hell bent on kicking ass and taking names as the U.S. Marines. I'll stack a division of Jarheads against a division of anybody else in the world and I know where I'll put my money. Keep the high tech toys, just give 'em each a rifle and a bayonet. "Every Marine a rifleman" is not a hollow boast. Cooks and typists in the Marines get better combat training then alot of grunts in some other nations, and time after time that sage practice has turned the tide in a tough spot.

On the other hand, however, while I think the publics perception of the Marines and their historical role may permit a slightly higher tolerance to casualties than the US Army (Marine units have time and again fought in with around 70% casualties. US Army doctrine sez a unit is not combat effective after about 20%) I still think our biggest enemy would be found in Washington D.C. or in the press or hometown USA. Fionn is right. The best way to defeat the US is with public opinion. That's what smeared us in Vietnam, after Tet, the NVA was decimated. We creamed 'em, but it didn't matter. Giap's plan worked flawlessly. He won.

Despite all this, I am proud to have been a Marine, and I earnestly, honestly think, all propaganda aside, that there are few equal units, and none better than Uncle Sams Misguided Children.

Zamo

As a post script, have any of you Korean buffs read Martin Russ' "Breakout"?

[This message has been edited by Zamo (edited 07-28-2000).]

[PeterNZer]

Ghurkins, Ghurkas, I can't spell.

anyway. I love those guys!

I was doing some reading for my paper on Private Military Companies and International Law, (wanna read it? Drop me a mail, ptyson@datamonitor.com).

Anyway, didn't whatshisname precursor to Tony Blair suggest using them as UN troops? Bloody good idea!

Something like 10,000 turn up for selection for the Ghurka troops each year but the UK can only take 100 max. And Nepalese troops in the UN, hardly going to be a political force, (unlike say using US troops, which gets people hot under the collar). And they like fighting and losses probably are tolerated well.

I say lets get on with it, recruit a cpl of thousand now and more in the future and give them some shiny blue helmets and send em out there, hurah!

Too much energy drink for me. www.vitalise.com ..mm they now sell it in the UK too! Mmm!

PeterNZ

[marcusjm]

I would like to add that except for some of the elite forces like USMC, Gurkhas, SAS etc most of the quallity an army posseses is determined on where they fight and why they fight. I don't think Israelis would perform particullary well fighting in Mongolia mainly because there wouldn't be any point for them being there in the first place.

Russians for instance are notoriously good at defending the mother land but sucks totally when sent out on missions outside actual Russia. I bet that similar degradation would occur if the US army was sent out on a mission in Antarctica without any logical reason . Some good examples are US in Vietnam and Somalia, Russia in Afghanistan and Chechnya. At the same time the US army performed excellent while fighting the nazis in Europe.

There's probably thousands of factors determining quallity.

Marcus

[PeterNZer]

A side note re Somalia.

I don't wan to get into a huge debate about how good or not the US is..

But I read some pretty scathing stuff from Ausie officers about how Somalia was handled by the US forces. Not by the troops on the ground, but just how in general Command gave out operational instructions and stuff.

Damn it's Friday and I can't get the right words out.

ok.

like, what i mean is. There was consensus amongst the forces of a 'softly softly' approach.. or something like that. Of being firm but not too firm. Damn it, someone will know what i'm talking about. And the US managed to piss ALL of hte factions off or something, so while it would be nice and quiet in the Ausie sectors the Yanks had all sorts of hell going down and troops got killed ...

It was really interesting reading, but I read it over a year ago. The writer bassically said that he thought the US command botched the operation. The media and therefore public view is of course, different, that the Knights went in and despite trying to be jolly nice, were spurned by the savages.

I'd be keen for some more informed comment

(Not hard huh?)

PeterNZ

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

There's your freak'n smilies, ok!

[Philistine]

re: Somalia. A good read is "Blackhawk Down" (I forget the author). Looks at the operation in Somalia to snatch one of the warlord leaders that went wrong. Although it's main focus is the plight of the soldiers on the ground, it does touch upon the larger political and command [mis]handling of Somalia.

IMHO, both interesting and well-written. It also gives an insight as to the difference between special forces and "elite" units, particularly US Rangers vs. Delta Force, giving a highly sympathetic, but not particularly flattering portrayal of the ranger units who were highly trained but had little to no experience.

A very good description of how things can go very wrong, very fast, and an interesting depiction of urban warfare which has some utility to CM [There! I had an on-topic tie in!]

--Philistine

[dumbo]

Gauchi: Thanks for the info. I kinda knew the ratio I guess my numbers were WAY off, thanks for the correction.

_dumbo

[Kingfish]

Berli and Zamo,

I'll pit your division of marines against my Vatican guards any day of the week!!!

Your M16s, tanks, and organic air support are no match for my long spears (with colorful silk streamers on the end)!!!

Make sure your troops bring their mothers along, they're going to need comforting after we're thru!!!

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

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Zamo]

Kingfish,

Yeeouch! That's too scary for even battle hardened Marines! Zamo runs under the bed, tail between his legs.

Reminds me of the famous Stalin quote.

Re: Somalia, I think the problems that went wrong there are once again manifestations of the whole problem of using a Democracies military for police duties. US forces LOVE to kick ass. That's what they are trained to do, and that's what they want to do. Once you tie them all up with beaurocratic BS and rules of engagement and political restraints, thats when they go to hell in a handbasket. Whether we're talking about Vietnam, or Somalia, the truth is, (in the case of the Americans) if the the politicians just "wound us up and let us go", things would be different. Of course, decimating Mogadishu with tons of firepower would not have engendered the support of the locals to be more democratic, but if applied with the proper military fortitude, it sure would have pacified them.

The US military of the 1920's and 30's learned the hard way how to deal with such things, unrelenting force and hunting down and killing the leaders. Such things are not permitted these days, so those lessons are ignored and we have quagmire everytime we try and "police" other sovereign nations. I really wish the US would just drop kick the whole UN, myself. It seems to tie ones hands and cause these insurmountable problems far more than it actually helps us, the US. I realize that's an overly simplistic viewpoint, but...

Zamo

[PeterNZer]

While i do agree to a point.. I have some qualifications!

Of course, ya zap everything, there's likely to be little opposition =)

However, other forces from democratic nations were able to operate in Somalia successfully and yet the American's couldn't.. which would suggest there was more than just a 'baah to police actions' sort of thing going on.

Again I don't know enough about this.

I'd suggest to an ausie out there, go dig up one of the many Think Tank / Defence thinkin tank resources out there and see what ya find, there's good stuff.

Anyway

time for the weekend, see ya all.

Peter

[Disaster@work]

Here is the Amazon link for BlackHawk down:

Black Hawk Down : A Story of Modern War

by Mark Bowden

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0871137380/o/qid=964806149 /sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/103-4415201-4892606

I read it when it was a series in the Philadelphia Enquirer. Gripping. Many of the chapters can still be read on the Philadelphia Enquirer's website here:

http://www.philly.com/packages/somalia/sitemap.asp

[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-28-2000).]

[Disaster@work]

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

Kingfish,

Re: Somalia, I think the problems that went wrong there are once again manifestations of the whole problem of using a Democracies military for police duties. US forces LOVE to kick ass. That's what they are trained to do, and that's what they want to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh oh. I have visions of Roman legionnaires rampaging in my head now. Does anyone doubt that the U.S. is an empire?

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

Once you tie them all up with beaurocratic BS and rules of engagement and political restraints, thats when they go to hell in a handbasket. Whether we're talking about Vietnam, or Somalia, the truth is, (in the case of the Americans) if the the politicians just "wound us up and let us go", things would be different. Of course, decimating Mogadishu with tons of firepower would not have engendered the support of the locals to be more democratic, but if applied with the proper military fortitude, it sure would have pacified them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're looking for that kind of pacification, an atom bomb would do just fine. I can almost sense the humour in your post but a lot of people would disagree. This bullheaded approach has gotten the U.S. in trouble time and time again. Any force that goes into a situation like that without reaching some sort of understanding with local powers is bound to miss a lasting resolution. This willingness to impose solutions from the outside so typical. It's military tourism.

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

The US military of the 1920's and 30's learned the hard way how to deal with such things, unrelenting force and hunting down and killing the leaders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, it's so sad that the U.S. is a democracy, isn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really wish the US would just drop kick the whole UN, myself. It seems to tie ones hands and cause these insurmountable problems far more than it actually helps us, the US. I realize that's an overly simplistic viewpoint, but...

Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Currently the UN functions only as a place to air grievances and bring issues to world attention. Because of superpower politics, of which the U.S. is a major part, the UN can never function as a police force. No country wants to be the one to put enough authority into a UN force so that it can act quickly, least of all the U.S.

Our Canadian general Romeo Dallaire begged his superiors to let his troops defend themselves and the Rwandan victims from the massacres there. 10 Belgian peacekeepers were killed and thousands of civilians, brutally murdered. But all he could do was watch. Within sight of peacekeepers people were being hacked to pieces. They were taunted by the killers. By the time it became clear to the bureaucrats the extent of the disaster, it would have taken a major influx of troops to stop the killings. If he had had the proper authority on the ground, he might have stopped it from beginning by arresting a few people and securing the armouries. Today, he is a tragic figure, an alcoholic. I feel so very bad for him. It is the shame of all members of the UN that they cannot put their faith in a standing army with authority. This is not just the U.S. fault (as they would have to supply much of the logistics of such an army) but also the fault of third world nations that don't want their sovereignty threatened (feeling guilty, perhaps, because they see that such a force might be needed in their regions).

[Disaster@work]

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

Gauchi: Thanks for the info. I kinda knew the ratio I guess my numbers were WAY off, thanks for the correction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please note that much of the help that Israel (and any country the U.S. wants to help) gets is through favourable contracts from suppliers. There is a complicated system of loans, escrow and deferred payments that enable countries to get U.S. arms, systems and technology without paying for it at the time (or perhaps ever). Much of this does not fall under the purview of the various Congressional committees that oversee arms packages to foreign powers.

[Disaster@work]

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

Berli and Zamo,

I'll pit your division of marines against my Vatican guards any day of the week!!!

Your M16s, tanks, and organic air support are no match for my long spears (with colorful silk streamers on the end)!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read once that the Vatican guard are actually pretty elite themselves. I don't mean the halberds and the Morion helmets, either. From what I remember, they have antiterrorism training and their own intelligence network courtesy of the worldwide Catholic network. Heh, remember that the 'confession' is one way for the 'universal church' to gain power over things temporal.

[Philistine]

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

Re: Somalia, I think the problems that went wrong there are once again manifestations of the whole problem of using a Democracies military for police duties. US forces LOVE to kick ass. That's what they are trained to do, and that's what they want to do. Once you tie them all up with beaurocratic BS and rules of engagement and political restraints, thats when they go to hell in a handbasket. Whether we're talking about Vietnam, or Somalia, the truth is, (in the case of the Americans) if the the politicians just "wound us up and let us go", things would be different.

Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I think you are right to a degree, I think you are missing the issue. Vietnam and Somalia were completely different situations. One was a full-scale conflict, the other was a peacekeeping mission/relief effort. Although rules of engagement were limited in both situations (although to radically different degrees), going in as an occupation force was never an option in Somalia.

For good or bad, much of the use of the U.S. military (as well as other countries') today is in the form of "peacekeepers" rather than standard military operations.

IMHO, soldiers are neither equipped nor prepared to act in this fasion. No aspect of their training focuses upon non-violent (or even non-lethal) reactions to violence or threatened violence.

To expect (as is being done) soldiers to essentially act as heavily armed police officers is unfair to both the soldiers and those being "policed." Specific training/equipment in "peacekeeping" operations would likely go a long way towards reducing "incidents."

My $.02

--Philisinte

[Jarmo]

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

Anyway, didn't whatshisname precursor to Tony Blair suggest using them as UN troops? Bloody good idea!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the way! Peacekeepers who collect ears!

I bet they'd keep the area in control. But there MIGHT be

a protest or few.

[Zamo]

I'd sure as hell be peaceful...I like my ears where they are. Perhaps we should recruit some Moary tribesmen as well and encourage them to re-adopt their fondness for "long pig". THAT might also keep folks in order! Do you think the Ghurks and the Mauries would squabble over the ears?

"They're mine! I need them for my collection!"

"No, they're mine! They taste deliscious with a honey glaze marinaide!"

Zamo

[Disaster@work]

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

While I think you are right to a degree, I think you are missing the issue. Vietnam and Somalia were completely different situations. One was a full-scale conflict, the other was a peacekeeping mission/relief effort. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

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

IMHO, soldiers are neither equipped nor prepared to act in this fasion. No aspect of their training focuses upon non-violent (or even non-lethal) reactions to violence or threatened violence. ... Specific training/equipment in "peacekeeping" operations would likely go a long way towards reducing "incidents."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why the National Guard isn't allowed on U.S. campuses any more. Anyway, in the wake of the Mogadishu incident the U.S. put in a lot of money into technological fixes. All of these fall somewhat under the "Batman Appropriations Budget". Some of the more interesting gadgets they came up with were:

Sticky foam cannons: This would be akin to the foam shooting firetrucks you see sometimes deployed at airports. Except the foam wouldn't be a fire retardant, it would be an adhesive. I think they had trouble with this system in that it sometimes stuck people's eyes, mouths and noses closed.

Slicks: No joking. Shooting out oily substances can make anyone slip and slide and not be able to charge your roadblocks. I imagine this wouldn't always work given the terrain.

Sonic weapons: There are sonic weapons now that can make you feel nauseous. These are subsonics, sounds that fall below the audible human spectrum. An extreme application of this technology can also cause your insides to burst. Now under review by the UN as a possible banned weapon.

Strobe or other light weapons : This they can do now. Shining several hundred candelight-power lights in the faces of a crowd will make it difficult for them to approach. It helps that this can be applied directionally. A strobe technology can cause disorientation and make it difficult for a crowd to keep its balance (I've seen this work in clubs, for example). Laser weapons are of course being investigated to burn out optics (cameras, scopes and eyes) but obviously not for crowd control.

Gases: There is work going on for better replacements for the old standby of tear gas. Pepper sprays are popular now but also more localized gases that can't be blown back on your own troops. Some gases are colorless, and odorless but result in forms of incapacitation.

[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 07-28-2000).]

[DanW]

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

Heh, remember that the 'confession' is one way for the 'universal church' to gain power over things temporal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do a dis-service to the countless priests who have given their lives in preserving that vow.

It's possible that I'm a little oversensitive since I've been admitted to the seminary to study for the priesthood. I went ahead and bought CM anyway, to support BTS, but I doubt I'll get to play more then the one battle I've gotten in so far.

Pax Christi,

Dan W.