What do you think is the wolrds best military(s)?

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="Devoo55"]Wow, they can have those american fatties. Canada has some of the hottest women in the world. Russian women are good too.Devoo55

WTF are you drunk on Maple syrup?

you just know im right.

Well educate me, what is so much better about the Canadian military?

[QUOTE="camreeno360"]

I only read like 4 messages on this and without looking I can tell there's probaly a million American bashing posts. :P

You guys make me laugh. You're arguing over the internet, somehow able to do it without actual social contact (beats me). Even more, most of you don't know much about world militaries and take your knowledge from some games and other little sources. Also because of hate towards a country or something.

jointed

Yeah, it's not as if there's a million posts like : "America, we have the strongest army on earth and can kick anyones arse"

Does all this really matter when all of the countries mentioned have nukes? jointed

We're talking about conventional war here not nuclear war. ICBM wars just lead to lots of dead planet.

oh and that story of yours is as valid as this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtQjJ5B0wNc

:roll: Right jointed, you found one youtube video of Marines taking cover during a shelling. So according to that video, because the Marines weren't outside eating the mortar shells and ****ting gunpowder, they must be cowards right?

Little thing man, Iraqi insurgents always attack US soldiers with mortar attacks and IEDs. Why? Because the odds of direct engagements were so heavily stacked against them they find itbetter to just walk around in the alleyways, drop an IED on the road and run. So tell me, who are the real cowards here?

EDIT: You must not have even watched the video. Only one guy was really breaking down in the back there, their were about 2 or 3 other guys telling him to calm down. But it's all moot anyway since we didn't even see anything in that video.

America all the way, but we depend on electronics too much. all it takes is for someone to drop an E.M.P. over the US and we loose.Possesed_Parrot

What is it with this belief? Do you people understand that the US trains its soldiers in survival courses and combat games with no technology to use?

E.M.P is useless anyway, since a majority of US AFVs and aircraft are electronically shielded.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Does all this really matter when all of the countries mentioned have nukes? CaptHawkeye

We're talking about conventional war here not nuclear war. ICBM wars just lead to lots of dead planet.

oh and that story of yours is as valid as this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtQjJ5B0wNc

:roll: Right jointed, you found one youtube video of Marines taking cover during a shelling. So according to that video, because the Marines weren't outside eating the mortar shells and ****ting gunpowder, they must be cowards right?

Little thing man, Iraqi insurgents always attack US soldiers with mortar attacks and IEDs. Why? Because the odds of direct engagements were so heavily stacked against them they find itbetter to just walk around in the alleyways, drop an IED on the road and run. So tell me, who are the real cowards here?

EDIT: You must not have even watched the video. Only one guy was really breaking down in the back there, their were about 2 or 3 other guys telling him to calm down. But it's all moot anyway since we didn't even see anything in that video.

Read what I wrote...

your little story is as valid as that video.... = not valid at all, and shouldnt be used to refute his statement...

America all the way, but we depend on electronics too much. all it takes is for someone to drop an E.M.P. over the US and we loose.Possesed_Parrot

Yup, that's right. Our soldiers and marines spend most their training inside of a tank or a computer lab controlling remote controlled robots.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Does all this really matter when all of the countries mentioned have nukes? CaptHawkeye

We're talking about conventional war here not nuclear war. ICBM wars just lead to lots of dead planet.

oh and that story of yours is as valid as this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtQjJ5B0wNc

:roll: Right jointed, you found one youtube video of Marines taking cover during a shelling. So according to that video, because the Marines weren't outside eating the mortar shells and ****ting gunpowder, they must be cowards right?

Little thing man, Iraqi insurgents always attack US soldiers with mortar attacks and IEDs. Why? Because the odds of direct engagements were so heavily stacked against them they find itbetter to just walk around in the alleyways, drop an IED on the road and run. So tell me, who are the real cowards here?

Read what I wrote...

your little story is as valid as that video.... = not valid at all, and shouldnt be used to refute his statement...

jointed

Insurgent infantry attacks on Coalition squads were concentrated mainly in the initial stages of the occupation, during which, Insurgency casualities were astronomical, while Coalition deaths were minor to non existent.The attack numbers decreased signifigantly after a few months, and use of IEDs and suicide bombings sky rocketed. This is directly a result of the insurgeny's inferior capabilities.They are guerillas after all, any good guerilla commander knows that you never engage First World forces in a straight shoot out.

[QUOTE="jointed"]Read what I wrote...

your little story is as valid as that video.... = not valid at all, and shouldnt be used to refute his statement...

CaptHawkeye

Insurgent infantry attacks on Coalition squads were concentrated mainly in the initial stages of the occupation, during which, Insurgency casualities were astronomical, while Coalition deaths were minor to non existent.The attack numbers decreased signifigantly after a few months, and use of IEDs and suicide bombings sky rocketed. This is directly a result of the insurgeny's inferior capabilities.They are guerillas after all, any good guerilla commander knows that you never engage First World forces in a straight shoot out.

OK, let's be honest with ourselves here: The only reason that Israel even enters into this discussion is because its military has been backed by more than $45 billion worth of US Military grants since 1949, and that doesn't even account for funds not explicitly designated for military purposes like those for R and D of new weapons systems and private loans. Yes, training and tactical expertise is crucial, but if it were not for the economic and military support of the US, Israel would not even exist. Please don't misinterpret this statement as having an anti-Israeli bias, just trying to bring up some points worth mentioning in the context of this discussion, if we're going to compare apples to apples here.

This having been said the US would probably have the strongest military, and almostc ertainly has the most advanced level of technology available, but I would not underestimate the Chinese for sheer numbers.

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

OK, let's be honest with ourselves here: The only reason that Israel even enters into this discussion is because its military has been backed by more than $45 billion worth of US Military grants since 1949, and that doesn't even account for funds not explicitly designated for military purposes like those for R and D of new weapons systems and private loans. Yes, training and tactical expertise is crucial, but if it were not for the economic and military support of the US, Israel would not even exist. Please don't misinterpret this statement as having an anti-Israeli bias, just trying to bring up some points worth mentioning in the context of this discussion, if we're going to compare apples to apples here.

This having been said the US would probably have the strongest military, and almostc ertainly has the most advanced level of technology available, but I would not underestimate the Chinese for sheer numbers.

Demonblight

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

StarFox-Elite

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]duestchlandNicktehImperial

Are you German?

Yeah, that's why he misspelled Germany! LMFAO :lol:

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

StarFox-Elite

[QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]duestchlandDemonblight

Are you German?

Yeah, that's why he misspelled Germany! LMFAO :lol:

[QUOTE="Demonblight"][QUOTE="NicktehImperial"]

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]duestchlandcpo335

Are you German?

Yeah, that's why he misspelled Germany! LMFAO :lol:

Yeah, but it's funnier my way. :)

[QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"]

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

cpo335

No?

What, well they wouldn't be duelling but if the situation arised, a british soldier in a one on one firefight with any other soldier he'd probably win in most cases...

And no offence, but I can't see how the british army isn't the finest trained, since they don't have very much friendly fire accidents at all...unlike the US army....

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"]

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

StarFox-Elite

No?

What, well they wouldn't be duelling but if the situation arised, a british soldier in a one on one firefight with any other soldier he'd probably win in most cases...

And no offence, but I can't see how the british army isn't the finest trained, since they don't have very much friendly fire accidents at all...unlike the US army....

What? Friendly fire? Where'd you get that? Sources (And don't give me that biased crap you read).

[QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"][QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"]

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

cpo335

No?

What, well they wouldn't be duelling but if the situation arised, a british soldier in a one on one firefight with any other soldier he'd probably win in most cases...

And no offence, but I can't see how the british army isn't the finest trained, since they don't have very much friendly fire accidents at all...unlike the US army....

What? Friendly fire? Where'd you get that? Sources (And don't give me that biased crap you read).

What? What did I read?

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"][QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"]

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

StarFox-Elite

No?

What, well they wouldn't be duelling but if the situation arised, a british soldier in a one on one firefight with any other soldier he'd probably win in most cases...

And no offence, but I can't see how the british army isn't the finest trained, since they don't have very much friendly fire accidents at all...unlike the US army....

What? Friendly fire? Where'd you get that? Sources (And don't give me that biased crap you read).

What? What did I read?

Look it up on british news websites, if you were here, you'd see news reports on TV occasionally saying how people were shot down from the sky by US forces...

OMG look on british news websites like BBC and stuff, there should be all sorts... even a guy who lives on my street who worked in the RAF was there when their helicopters were shot down by US forces, they claimed that their equipment was malfuntioning...

[QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"][QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"][QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"]

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

cpo335

No?

What, well they wouldn't be duelling but if the situation arised, a british soldier in a one on one firefight with any other soldier he'd probably win in most cases...

And no offence, but I can't see how the british army isn't the finest trained, since they don't have very much friendly fire accidents at all...unlike the US army....

What? Friendly fire? Where'd you get that? Sources (And don't give me that biased crap you read).

What? What did I read?

The US actually does sustain more casualties in friendly fire incidents than British forces. But that is because it fields more men and participates in more operations. When you take negate the operation and manpower numerical differance, British and American forces suffer,on percentage, equal numbers of friendly fire incidents. It's a known law of humanity, the more people you have working on a task, the likelyhood that someone is going to make a mistake increases as well.

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"][QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"][QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="StarFox-Elite"]

British Army.

We have the finest, best trained soldiers in the world.

(Before you flame me, we do have a VERY good army, but that doesn't mean that we could hold the line against something like the full force of China, a single British soldier in a duel in any terrain against any other country's soldier would win 4/5 if they could duel eachother again and again...)

CaptHawkeye

No?

What, well they wouldn't be duelling but if the situation arised, a british soldier in a one on one firefight with any other soldier he'd probably win in most cases...

And no offence, but I can't see how the british army isn't the finest trained, since they don't have very much friendly fire accidents at all...unlike the US army....

What? Friendly fire? Where'd you get that? Sources (And don't give me that biased crap you read).

What? What did I read?

The US actually does sustain more casualties in friendly fire incidents than British forces. But that is because it fields more men and participates in more operations. When you take negate the operation and manpower numerical differance, British and American forces suffer roughly equal numbers offriendly fire incidents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6459895.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

What the hell do you call that? Trained?

Yes but what happens, what the friendly fire actually was is just rediculous sometimes...

like how do your AA guns take down 20 birtish choppers? yeah Iraq is really gonna have choppers coming after you...choppers with the flag on them...

[QUOTE="majadamus"]Russia and the United States. Russia has more nukes than us. :( NicktehImperial

What? Are you serious?

From the Soviet era... they are horrible nukes for the most part... they can't even dismantle some of them because they we're designed to blow up when you try and crack them open...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6459895.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

What the hell do you call that? Trained?

StarFox-Elite

Sparta. Discussion over.UssjTrunks

Yes but what happens, what the friendly fire actually was is just rediculous sometimes...StarFox-Elite

They always are, no one is perfect. If we were to use your logic, and claim that an army sucks because is has a bad case of trigger happiness every now and then, then virtually every army in modern world history would "suck". Just look up all of the cases of friendly fire incidents involving artillery in World War 1 or 2.

like how do your AA guns take down 20 birtish choppers? yeah Iraq is really gonna have choppers coming after you...choppers with the flag on them...

20 choppers in one battle? Don't tell me you honestly believe your own exageration. Frankly, Coalition FF casualties have been minor. The reason you think the Coalition suffers a lot from them, or that they are somehow representative of an entire army's training standards, is from how much attention an FF case gets from the media.

Russia and the United States. Russia has more nukes than us. :( majadamus

Why are people saying England is a close second to the US? Obviously you guys know nothing of the their military...even their equipment/weapons are considered out-dated to the Germany military's. This baby is currently in production for the German military. It's just a shame they can't use all the things they have:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/XM8_-_Final_Version.JPG

I know this is slightly off but the A10 rocks, yeah its pretty fast, theres jets that go allot faster and the A10 is actually a pretty slow jet overall, but its very durable and takes allot of crap before it loses stability...

Max Speed 380 Knotts or 438 mph... cruise speed 300 knotts or 340 mph

However, one thing I will agree with, the US has the best Air force... We've got Navy Pilots but they're actually better trained than your average RAF pilot...

[QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]Sparta. Discussion over.cpo335

Maybe. Personally, I don't consider a country's military history much to brag about when their most showcased battle is one that they lost.

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]Sparta. Discussion over.CaptHawkeye

Maybe. Personally, I don't consider a country's military history much to brag about when their most showcased battle is one that they lost.

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]Sparta. Discussion over.CaptHawkeye

Maybe. Personally, I don't consider a country's military history much to brag about when their most showcased battle is one that they lost.

Cut out the part they lost...but why isn't it something to brag about?

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]Sparta. Discussion over.Mudig

Maybe. Personally, I don't consider a country's military history much to brag about when their most showcased battle is one that they lost.

Cut out the part they lost...but why isn't it something to brag about?

Having studied that battle in school I found the movie a horrible misrepresentation of what actually took place. There were 300 Spartans accompanied by men from all over Greece. There were 80,000 Greeks against an army of 1 million Persians. The Greeks held the narrow mountain pass for an impressive amount of time and then they were all killed.

[QUOTE="Mudig"][QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]Sparta. Discussion over.MGS9150

Maybe. Personally, I don't consider a country's military history much to brag about when their most showcased battle is one that they lost.

Cut out the part they lost...but why isn't it something to brag about?

Having studied that battle in school I found the movie a horrible misrepresentation of what actually took place. There were 300 Spartans accompanied by men from all over Greece. There were 80,000 Greeks against an army of 1 million Persians. The Greeks held the narrow mountain pass for an impressive amount of time and then they were all killed.

Ok, but I'd like to know is why shouldn't say Italians feel proud of their history with the Roman Empire...etc.

[QUOTE="CaptHawkeye"]

[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="UssjTrunks"]Sparta. Discussion over.Mudig

Maybe. Personally, I don't consider a country's military history much to brag about when their most showcased battle is one that they lost.

Cut out the part they lost...but why isn't it something to brag about?

Because they lost, frankly. Think about it, does it really matter if your soccer team lost to the other by only 1 point? Not really, you lost and that's that. I'm not saying what they accomplished wasn't worth noting, but why should a side that loses a battle be held in equal esteem to anyside which is know for won battles? Accomplished objectives and covered deadlines are more important than random kill:death ratios.