Best Army in world

[Reiyn]

How do you define 'best?'

If you take it in terms of numbers then obviously, in the long run and with other things being equal, size will win out.

If you take it in terms of quality and pound-for-pound fighting ability, it's a toss-up between Britain and Israel.

My grandad fought in World War Two and he said that the American troops were very good if they had overwhelming superiority but that if they had to fight roughly equal numbers and equipment they were useless!

Doesn't matter. American tactics are such that Americans will never fight without number and fire superiority. Why? Because that's how you win. There is no competition, equiptment, numbers, and training all rolled into one, the U.S. military is the most powerful the world has yet seen.

[The German Region]

How do you define 'best?'

If you take it in terms of numbers then obviously, in the long run and with other things being equal, size will win out.

If you take it in terms of quality and pound-for-pound fighting ability, it's a toss-up between Britain and Israel.

My grandad fought in World War Two and he said that the American troops were very good if they had overwhelming superiority but that if they had to fight roughly equal numbers and equipment they were useless!

Doesn't matter. American tactics are such that Americans will never fight without number and fire superiority. Why? Because that's how you win. There is no competition, equiptment, numbers, and training all rolled into one, the U.S. military is the most powerful the world has yet seen.

I agree that the US Army has some of the best equipment and can call on a lot of troop numbers, but its the training that really matters. Weapons are useless if your soldiers aren't trained to use them properly.

In Vietnam American troops were seriously hampered by troops who had inferior technology to them but the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese army still managed to defeat them. The US troops weren't trained properly for the environments that they were fighting in. American Forces excell at large open battle, as do any modern force, where there tanks and artillery can dominate the field. But in the confines of Vietnam they didn't know how to handle it because they hadn't been trained to fight in these conditions.

And if Vietnam had the same technological weapons as the Americans did in the Vietnam war then I believe the American casualties would have been much higher. So the American Army isn't the most powerful army yet as it hasn't really been tested against someone of the exact same level.

[Meoton]

No one is on that same level.

Best depends on what you are talking about.
The U.S. military currently is the most advance military in the world when it comes to killing the other guy.
It is not designed to be the best at peace keeping.
It also isn't allowed to be any better.
To be peace keepers and to counter insurgencies, you actually have to be willing to put your troops between the opposition and the (hopefully allied) civilians you are trying to protect.
That would increase US casualties and destroy any support for the war.
Most of our military isn't trained to work with civilian populations, foreign or domestic.
Some of our special forces when first in Afghanistan grew beards and befriended civilian leaders.
Then our old school army brass told them to shave (and not be so culturally sensitive).
If you want something blown up, send in the American Armed Forces. Fuck Yeah!!!
If you want to establish a peaceful occupation while setting up a new civilian government, send in the Brits.
If you want to bulldoze homes in an ethnic slum, send in the Israelis.
If you want to blow up yourself and a bus full of children, join Hamas.

[The German Region]

No one is on that same level.

Thats what I mean. America is fighting people who aren't on their level and people are saying that they are the ultimate army because they have defeated what is a inferior force. If American and Veitnam had had the same equipment or even the Iraqi Army then I doubt that America (and her allies in the Iraq conflicts) would have won so easily and even more American deaths would have been sustained.

[Meoton]

No one is on that same level.

Thats what I mean. America is fighting people who aren't on their level and people are saying that they are the ultimate army because they have defeated what is a inferior force. If American and Veitnam had had the same equipment or even the Iraqi Army then I doubt that America (and her allies in the Iraq conflicts) would have won so easily and even more American deaths would have been sustained.

Armed forces are trained to use the equipment they have.
U.S. armed forces are trained to use those tools.
If you want to compare individual forces for individual tasks that is one thing.
If you want to say one nation soldier is better trained than another's in general, that's kind of hard to do.
Each force is trained to use the tools it has.
If you want to take troops from different armies, provide them muskets and canon, and see who wins.
That would be an interesting experiment, but wouldn't really prove much of anything, except these guys survived.
In Afghanistan, US troops got quite a kill ratio going. (not counting weddings and such)
You are right to say the Taliban don't have the same advantages the US military does.
They also, are not as well trained, either. It's their home turf. But we can see in the dark.
They can ambush us. But we can call in air strikes. They can plant IED's. We have body armor and armored vehicles. We camp in fortified compounds. They walk freely among the populace.
You use what you have.
If the US wanted to kill every living thing in a province, we could. But we are supposed to be the good guys rebuilding the nation after overthrowing the terrorists.
We probably could have done that, if we hadn't of detoured into Iraq. And if Bush had actually given a Fuck about Afghanistan.

[Meoton]

No one is on that same level.

Thats what I mean. America is fighting people who aren't on their level and people are saying that they are the ultimate army because they have defeated what is a inferior force. If American and Veitnam had had the same equipment or even the Iraqi Army then I doubt that America (and her allies in the Iraq conflicts) would have won so easily and even more American deaths would have been sustained.

If America had wanted to flatten either country, it could have.
That wasn't the mission.
In reality, they had conflicting missions.
I don't think the Viet Cong had military training.
They, like most insurgents, learned to make the most of what they had versus an occupying force.
A war between armies is different than a war between an army and an insurgency.
Iraq's army, especially the Republican Guard, did have training and experience.
They could have put up a good fight and that would have caused a lot of casualties.
Mostly Iraqi military and civilian. If they had our planes, tanks, body armor, computers, satellites, communications, etc... , and etc.... who knows how the fight would have gone.
Maybe we could conjure up some Persian immortals and some Spartans.
We give them modern weaponry, a weeks training, and tell them to re-enact the battle of Thermopylae.
Of course, the real battle of Thermopylae had Athenians and members of other greek city states.