Support Our Troops

But off course they still have very good panzers, like the Leopards.

 

Thanks for the numbers info guys--Andy. At any rate--even if they arent in the actual fightinf--meaning some or all of those German Soldiers--I would still like to think about them and thank them for being over there in the middle east.

 

I would say the British army are the best in Europe, but then again I am biased .

 

I think that would be my choice as well.

Best regards/ Daniel

 

Thank you. And i won't say the 'M' word, i'll get a slap

V-Slav,if you think hat by posting that shows how you understand the problems in Ulster, all i can say is:

WRONG

Having spent four and a half years pounding the streets, and that was before a cease fire, i'm still confused as hell.

But my whole point was, which once again you refused to address, that you condemn any one who supports terrorisim, a sentiment i agree with, yet fail to realse your own countries support for it.

As for Israel, if the British Army reacted to the terrorists in Ulster the way Israel reacts to them there, your country would be the first one to jump down our throats.

 

Off course the Brittish have the best navy from Europe. But for the rest of the army, ... Don't know much about it.

 

I thought the question was continentalEurope.

As for the best Army on Europe at all, I'll tend to go with the Brits because they are pretty universal (ships, carriers, nuclear weapons, tanks, air force, the whole zoo) and battle experienced.

Speaking out of battle experience, what about the Serbian Army? AFAIK they fooled the almighty NATO quite a bit at Kososvo.

Cheers,

 

The Serbs are more of a special unit fighters then an actual Army. These guys still use T34 and old AK's.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20010501205655/www.inet.hr/steelpanthers/military/Serbia/oob2000.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20020109053756/www.inet.hr/steelpanthers/military/Serbia/equipment/index.htm

Turn of the century stuff but dont think for one minute they are just a few bandits with ak47s.

 

Also 16 Canadians(exchange program)
If anyone is confused about Canada, our government dissipoints us. Canada is majority pro-war I believe, My city of Calgary is 76% pro-war, which I believe is higher then alot of USA, Brit cities I believe, and a warm welcome for Americans all around, just got back from the Flames game, and there wre quite a few US flags in the crowds, as well as Canadian and British, US anthem got a very warm welcome, and alot of US flags have been added beside the Canadians flag. Brits Best Army in Europe.

 

Well, I'd go with the British Army for the most professional, but the Armée de Terre is the mightiest in Europe. They have finally learned History's lessons. George Washington clearly said it:

"One of the most effective ways of mantaining peace is to be prepared for war".

 

Friedrich..They are though still very much still burdened with the cold war philosophies...They have many military missions with the UK armed forces and have and still ongoing plans to use us as an example for themselves in more rapid mobile force use...They have always had their elite mobile units..but the British army as well as retaining their armour punch in a much reduced capacity from cold war days..still though efficient when needed as we have recently seen..

All arms battle groups rather than battalion, regt, brigade, division actions...Higher echeilon command structures still exist at all those levels, but as Bish may confirm, Brit forces now...Highly capable of splitting force into small well balanced battle groups...Wander who they learned that off......????

The Britsh forces now have a more mobile concept and out of area mindset...new carriers to back that up soon...then they do..

They are aiming to emulate the British forces concept and it seems to be working...

Proof will be in the pudding though in future years..

 

If there is ever a European Army - which I hope will be very soon - than the next countries should get:

Great Brittain: Navy
Germany: Army
France: Airforce

I'm not sure about this last one.

Comments please!

 

Sorry Erwin....Trying not to be mines best routine and all that...But European forces are now lacking the battle and command experiences tried and tested and working...

Exercises and plans are great..but no substite for the real thing...Ireland, Sierra Leonne the intital advance and the differeng ways Kosovo was handled on the march to Pristina etc, now Gulf2...

The British armed forces have something now lacking in European mainland and it will take some time to catch up..battle experience and command and control philosophy tried and tested.

Not a fan of Blair but his foreign policy on the quiet in speak in forked tongue and carry a pretty small but hard stick...

The vision he has for our armed forces especially with the new carrier design...getting away from small cruiser/airpads..So as not to have to rely on big brother for everything...and the cruise missle submanrines..is showing us that the UK will be looking at out of area and certainly not Nato confined actions anymore...Blair wants the UK to punch above its normal weight and looks like he will get that wish...Very clever man, even if I dont like him..

 

It's not mentioned to attack - if there istn't a real treat.

It is just a peace force: to come into conflicts it is really necessary, e.g. Kossovo

 

I agree there, its about time we got some of our former power back. If nothing else, we will have more say with our Ally. But, i won't be holding my breath about the carrier or anything else were supposed to get in the next few years. I am sure i don't need to tell you Urgh, but what we are told we are getting and what we get are usually two different things.

 

I have heared so many rumours about all the new stuff the forces are supposed to be getting it is rediculous, though most of them are obviously little more conjecture. Does anyone have the official dates for the Harrier being taken out of service and the JSF going into service?

I agree with what you are saying about experience, it means that the 'core' of most units seems to know what to expect and be quite experienced, unlike in many other forces. It also means that training is based on what actually happens rather than on what people think might happen (e.g. experience in Northern Ireland has undoubtedly changed the way FIBUA training is conducted and so on) which is a great change from the era of huge NATO exercises aimed at showing how to beat the Russians.

Oh, quick question, I was talking to a chap I know who served in the army in the 60's until the 80's (I think) and he was telling me about the 'dril' for a nuclear attack if you are in the field, i.e. lie down, helmet towards the blast and place your hands and arms under your chest, does anyone know why you put your hands there? He and his colleagues reckoned it was so that if you survive the blast you still have your hands and so can commit suicide

 

Yes Bish...Equipment upgrades and totally new equipment...old old story..some happens some doesnt...Remember back to seventies when we were being told of the new Nimrod AEW amongst many other bits of kit to come online...Didnt fit in very neatly at that time though with the moratorium on flying hours at height of cold war whereby front line jocks were kept on ground to save on fuel costs..

But think these carriers are not the usual story of replacement kit, or wished for kit without a use..There seems to be a vision in current politcios of all colours on the future role for out of area needs...and the need for UK to if not go alone..at least show big brother that we are capable of assisting even if called on in Indian Ocean, or Pacific rim...something that is a whole change in mideset from the rundown of Suez etc...I personally think this is where our politicos view the threat now, not Europe, but quick out of area actions with mobile hard hitting force..summit they always wanted for European battlefield and have payed lip service to for years...I think this lot are going for it big time. I can see it happening this time, Blair sees this as only way to project/protect Britain now. Think you will see those carriers and think we will see them used.

 

LOL. Truly upgrading from the crap you gave us! Those subs have been repaired for a year now and they still are not trusted to go under water! Oh well we have idiots in government, but that sub money could have been so much better spent Anyways, how many carriers does the Royal Navy have now? Alright here is my thoughts.
Best Army: I would say Britain or Russia.
Best Navy: Britain
Best Airforce: Britain.

 

LOL. Truly upgrading from the crap you gave us! Those subs have been repaired for a year now and they still are not trusted to go under water! Oh well we have idiots in government, but that sub money could have been so much better spent Anyways, how many carriers does the Royal Navy have now? Alright here is my thoughts.
Best Army: I would say Britain or Russia.
Best Navy: Britain
Best Airforce: Britain. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, are you saying we didnt use the cruise subs in the attack on Iraq?

3 officially named thru deck carriers, Invincible, Ark Royal, and Illustrious. Youll never see all 3 in service at same time.

Back to the subs then, did they go to the Gulf on top?

Crap you gave us? Youve lost me.