Best Army in world

[United Russian State]

Okay my French lover, let's clear up a fee things. Devdovshchina has gone down over the years by a very large percantage. It is not as common like it was during the Chechen wars. When moral is done it becomes a big problem. But it is not like Russia is the only country that has problems like this.

Conscription armies have major advantages. The biggest beening you will be able to feilf troops much faster than those who do not. have a conscriptin force. Serveing in the military teaches people life long skills and lessons that can better the person. Thrid Russia is moving towards an much larger force consiting of all volanteer soilders. Many divisons, like in VDV, already have are made up of all volanteer soldiers.

Your task of giving candy out to people should be given to the French. It would be better than waiting for some other nation to save them.

[Paypilazhen]

If I may interject...

Vietnam, they have consistently done what a GOVERNMENT's Army is meant to do... PROTECT THE COUNTRY, not fucking about in other people's god damned business, main fucking reason you yanks got bombed in the holy asshole's first place. (Oi, forgot the Frenchers, but ain't much to say their... except they also beat the French Foreign Legion, which I consider some real soldiers en masse.] They whooped the Mongols, they whooped the prolific chinks (Chinamen) and they whooped the Americans, pretty sure they whooped some Cambodians too, but can't remember. Shit if anyone every landed on American soil we'd be up for the fucking of a millenia.

[Aelosia]

Anyone here is aware that the Napoleonic Wars are called "wars" and not "war" for a reason?

That period comprises several different wars, and actually France won each and every one of them, until they lost the last one.

It is like saying that the romans sucked militarily speaking, because, after all, they lost to a bunch of barbarians in the end.

[Kobrania]

You comparing industrial Britain to the Germanic Barbarians?

I might agree.

[Rikese]

Okay my French lover, let's clear up a fee things. Devdovshchina has gone down over the years by a very large percantage. It is not as common like it was during the Chechen wars. When moral is done it becomes a big problem. But it is not like Russia is the only country that has problems like this.

I agree, many countries have issues with this problem of conscription, like Libya for example.

Conscription armies have major advantages. The biggest beening you will be able to feilf troops much faster than those who do not. have a conscriptin force. Serveing in the military teaches people life long skills and lessons that can better the person. Thrid Russia is moving towards an much larger force consiting of all volanteer soilders. Many divisons, like in VDV, already have are made up of all volanteer soldiers.
[/quote]

That's because the VDV is an elite unit which is comprised of the careerists. It is pretty hard for a terrified and demoralized conscript to work their way into a unit of giants (relatively) such as the VDV.

You can't create a volunteer force and expect the numbers of troops to INCREASE. That simply will not happen with the Russian army's record. The US armed forces on the other hand, is a whole different case. The incentives of free education and a decent paying job are far greater than any appeal to patriotism could ever be.

Here's a little excerpt from a news article, which just goes to show that your glorious leaders are more in touch with reality than you are:

The goal is to streamline the armed forces down to a total of 1 million serving personnel of whom 150,000 will be officers by 2012.

In terms of absolute numbers reduction, that goal is already near completion. RIA Novosti said the armed forces had already been reduced from their high level of 4.5 million in the last years of the Soviet Union to only 1.2 million today. However, the envisaged reforms, as well as eliminating all NCOs, will slash the number of remaining officers by more than half from their current level of 310,000 to only 150,000.

and they whooped the Americans,

If you call 'whooping' barely achieving a 1:20 kill ratio against an enemy which suddenly decided to pack up and leave after your offensive failed, then yeah. That is of course not counting the 2,000,0000 non-combatants that died in addition to the 1,000,000 dead combatants. Out of 18,000,000...thats 17% of the populace dead.

[Gauntleted Fist]

If it's technological, America.

If it's numbers, a toss-up between China or India.

If it's fighting spirit or sheer willingness to die for country, probably Russia. (Going from examples like WWII.)

[A White Hawk]

If it's technological, America.

If it's numbers, a toss-up between China or India.

If it's fighting spirit or sheer willingness to die for country, probably Russia. (Going from examples like WWII.)

You have no clue.

US has more troops then India and Russia. Technologically, the US is superior. Britain has the best training program.

Overall US is the best.

1. United States of America

2. The Russian Federation

3. Kingdom of Great Britain

4. Peoples Republic of China

5. France or Canada

[Gauntleted Fist]

You have no clue.

US has more troops then India and Russia.

India:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 237,042,868
females age 16-49: 243,276,310 (2009 est.)

United States:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 59,764,677
females age 16-49: 59,437,663 (2009 est.)

Do you notice a slight difference there?

[Rikese]

You have no clue.

US has more troops then India and Russia.

India:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 237,042,868
females age 16-49: 243,276,310 (2009 est.)

United States:
Manpower fit for military service:
males age 16-49: 59,764,677
females age 16-49: 59,437,663 (2009 est.)

Do you notice a slight difference there?

Not really. We are talking about active-duty troops. Not the amount of manpower that could be drafted in a war.

US does have less active-duty troops than India does. But it's hardly the huge disparity you are claiming with those statistics. I think the difference is by 200,000 or so.

If it's fighting spirit or sheer willingness to die for country, probably Russia. (Going from examples like WWII.)

Well any military would have fighting spirit if after a failed assault the remaining conscripts (oh, did I say that? I actually meant to say full-time professional fanatics like the Sardaukar) who decided to fall back were mowed down by machine-guns.

[DaWoad]

3)so you honestly believe that if Russia decided to invade france (fforgetting international involvement for a second) France would win huh?

DaWoad, with all due respect, by the time the Ruskis are halfway across Germany, both sides would have been nuked into a nuclear winter.

Oh so true heheheh

[Trippoli]

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!

ALL FALL ON THEIR KNEES AND BOW BEFORE THE SUPREME ARMY OF ALLAH AND OSAMA!

ALLAH U AKBAR!

[Anemos Major]

I'm French, so I don't like to say this, but yeah... the GIS have a hell of a lot of experience clearing out the mob and communists from Sicilia.

I think that you have to get your facts straight. As actually:
1.the GIS were formed in 1978 as antiterrorism, not as anti-mafia, by a national unity cabinet which had the external support of the Communist party
2.never in Italy the carabinieri have been employed against the Communist Party, which is perfectly legal. (unless you're referring to the Brigate Rosse, which were quite a different thing, and opposed by the Communist Party)[/quote]

No, you need to get your English abilities tested. I said that they had a lot of experience clearing out the mob in Siciliy, not that they were specifically formed for this purpose. And yes, I am indeed talking about the BR, which, regardless of whether the Party advocated them or not, were Communists.

[Gillenor]

Or France?

I mean, look at it this way; you may have more tanks, you may have more IFVs, but you sure as hell don't have as many working nukes.

Well, the US does, but their army is too big. In terms of today's battlefield situations, the French have the ability to respond quckly and effectively with experienced troops.

Or in other words the french surrender immediatly.

[Natapoc]

The best military is the military that never kills anyone. It looks like Greenland is winning for now with their armed coastguard that does mostly search and rescue operations.

[Anemos Major]

Or France?

I mean, look at it this way; you may have more tanks, you may have more IFVs, but you sure as hell don't have as many working nukes.

Well, the US does, but their army is too big. In terms of today's battlefield situations, the French have the ability to respond quckly and effectively with experienced troops.

Or in other words the french surrender immediatly.

Like half the Soviet military at the beginning of WWII...?

Remember Capitaine Danjou from the FFL? There's a reason his wooden hand is still preserved.

[Polythinia]

Switzerland, they're a little too neutral if you ask me.

Neutral, too neutral... In fact, they may have us exactly where they want us to...

[Natapoc]

Switzerland, they're a little too neutral if you ask me.

Neutral, too neutral... In fact, they may have us exactly where they want us to...

The swiss army will forever be shamed for the cold blooded murder of 13 unarmed anti-fascist protesters in Geneva.

[Kim Jong-ilia]

So you managed to pull an invasion on Georgia... Disregarding the fact that some "shitty" army inflicted some serious losses during few days, the communications were completely lost between airforce and army, and you have numerical superiority, you still managed!

If elite troops from VDV are unable to do jackshit without air support, what will you do if you go to fight against NATO? You know they will get air superiority from early stages of war, when what?


Its hard to understand what you really wanted to say, but I`ll guess... Georgia captured your air defences (!), and used them against you which makes your soldiers look like tools... Or did you meant that Su-27s were lost to Russian made air defence Georgia was using? Probably the latter one, but you`ll be dissapointed: Georgia doesn`t use Russian equipment. Soviet maybe, but not Russian. Oh, and no, it isn`t the same.

Serious losses? You confuse Georgia with Russia. Lost a lot more troops and almost it's entire military. They were completely crushed in a matter of a few days. Air superiority was taken from first start of the conflict, Georgia could do nothing. Their training by America didn't help at all.

You do know NATO is a joke right? It's basically America and Britain, all the other countries want to pull out as soon as one person is killed. Kill a few hundred and they'll cry and run. Kazakhstan would be more useful than most of them. Besides Russia air defense and air force is better than NATO. The only thing you would need to worry about is America's F-22. But even if you do get air superiority doesn't mean you can win the war with it alone. When NATO attacked Serbia it hardly put a dent in their military unlike we were lead to belief at first where NATO thought it completely destroyed it. It destroyed a lot of rubber tanks though at least.

Oh really? Tor missile system was used by Georgia to down those planes.

The casualties lost by either side are as follows:
Georgia: 185 dead, 1964 wounded
Russia: 64 dead, 183 wounded
South Ossetia: 150 dead, no wounded
Abkhazia: 1 dead, 2 wounded

The part on Serbia and NATO on the other hand has so many inaccuracies I'm not even gonna point them out.

[A White Hawk]

Or France?

I mean, look at it this way; you may have more tanks, you may have more IFVs, but you sure as hell don't have as many working nukes.

Well, the US does, but their army is too big. In terms of today's battlefield situations, the French have the ability to respond quckly and effectively with experienced troops.

Or in other words the french surrender immediatly.

Like half the Soviet military at the beginning of WWII...?

Remember Capitaine Danjou from the FFL? There's a reason his wooden hand is still preserved.

Fuck the frogs. Seriously, I do not like the arrogance against Americans in (most) of France.

[Gopferdammi]

Switzerland, they're a little too neutral if you ask me.

Neutral, too neutral... In fact, they may have us exactly where they want us to...

The swiss army will forever be shamed for the cold blooded murder of 13 unarmed anti-fascist protesters in Geneva.

I'd love to see some sources for that, considering I've never heard of it, despite being a frequent supporter of the GSOA (Group for a Switzerland without an Army).

[Clamparapa]

I'll say it's whoever has the most nukes, but if we go by military might, Israel FTW. They beat back HOW many assaults by Egypt and Syria? They also have the best SpecOps.

[Suvon]

If we're going with 'Best Army in the World' as in completely overall (strength, experience, technology, resources, weapons, leadership qualities, etc.) then the United States would have to be 'the best.' The thing is a monster and unparalleled in history. Maybe in half a century China might reach that standard in some categories but its still in a transition stage from the lumbering, conscript, cold war force into a sleeker, modernized army with the capacity of operating beyond its borders (at the moment the PLA can only operate outside of China for two weeks: the modern supply system, resources and leadership isn't there yet).

If this was a discussion about the most EFFECTIVE army that would be more interesting. As good as the US is, as its effectiveness in Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam has shown, its not the most effective.

[Khodoristan]

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!

ALL FALL ON THEIR KNEES AND BOW BEFORE THE SUPREME ARMY OF ALLAH AND OSAMA!

ALLAH U AKBAR!

nigga, you on crack?

[Anemos Major]

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!

ALL FALL ON THEIR KNEES AND BOW BEFORE THE SUPREME ARMY OF ALLAH AND OSAMA!

ALLAH U AKBAR!

nigga, you on crack?

No, he moved onto experimental blends.

[Khodoristan]

damn, must be some strong shit...