Top Ten Armies of today

The war has not really ended officially either -- there is just a "cease-fire". :lol:

However, North Korea invaded and were repelled with heavy losses... Sounds like defeat to me.

 

As far as I know, the aim of the action was not to reunite Korea, but merely to stop the North Korean invasion. This was achieved, hence the war was won by the UN.

 

True, although unification of the two Koreas was almost accomplished by the UN forces.

 

When did that happen I really dont know much about that war.

 

1950 - 1953

Try this site http://www.korean-war.com/ - it seems to have the basics about right...

 

true russia may use outdated weapons sometimes and its reserves may be less-trained than theur regulars, but the same goes for the USA.

the simonov was after all only invented during the cold war, and just as the russians produced such obsolete weaponry, so did the USA... (e.g. M-14's and garands in vietnam = similar guns to siminov SKS)

i highly doubt USA reserves are any better than russian reserves. USA still has m-60 tanks for its national guard.

also its good to see some nominations for Australia
you guys know how small our army is right?

 

Hmmm....

But then Vietnam was 40-odd years ago, and the situation has rather changed since then. Does America still use any obsolete weaponry today?

Well, IIRC National Guard units are currently deployed in Iraq/Afghanistan, so they can't be that bad... I grant you that they will never be quite as effective as full-time regulars, but (like the British TA) the National Guard seems eminently capable of standing in for the average regular unit.
As for the equipment, while the National Guard is better off than it once was, it still has to wait for the good stuff to trickle down from the regular army, same as any reserve force. However, any M-60s still in service are so heavily modified that, while obsolete by the standard of the M1A2 (or any other contemporary MBT), they are a mile above their equivalent second-line MBT in the Russian units (mostly T-62s. T-72s if you are lucky, T-55s if you are very unlucky).

lol - well, it all depends how you define 'best' - if you mean 'for its size', then yeah, why not. If you mean 'in an all-out war', then only if nobody bothers with Australia, and they can step up at the end of the war and take over.

 

Oh, by the way, welcome aboard smeghead, nice to see you!

 

The SKS is not really that similar at all. The M-14 and Garand fired a full power rifle cartridge whereas the SKS was a semi-auto only firing the same intermediate cartridge as the AK47/AKM. A similar weapon would have been a semi-auto only weapon in 5.56mm NATO.

The AK is still widely used, the SKS is no where near as prolific and according to a post from Ricky a while back the M-14 is back in favour in Iraq so from the point of view of the blokes actually using it the M-14 doesn't seem to be regarded as obsolete around 40 years after Vietnam.

 

I'd forgotten about that!

Here is the post:

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3232

 

i always thought (on paper at least) a t-55 was better than a stock m-60
both with decent crews (and both cold-war era)

does anyone know any armies who still use siminov SKS's? i didnt think it was such a bad gun (no worse than the M-14)
its just that it was unfortunate enough to be superceded by the AK47 which it was designed to complement

 

The SKS fired an intermediate cartridge, the M-14 fired a full power cartridge. Both were semi auto, the M-14 had a 20 shot detachable box, the SKS a 10 shot detachable box.

Why do you think it was "no worse" when the rate of fire was no better, the magazine capacity half and the stopping power less? The only respects in which the SKS is better is that it is marginally shorter, empty weights are about even.

The SKS might be considered equal to the M-1 carbine, but it is no way the equal to the M-14.

 

Lol Smeghead,if the Australian Army is small...then the Singapore Army must be tiny

 

I've heard good things about the singaporian army...
kick-arse infantry, great airforce
but like Australia (sniff) too small and still using a cold-war kit

Australia's MBT is still the Leopard 1
which from what i gather here...
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3160
and here...
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3538

is not the greatest tank evere made

 

Where are you getting your information about the US military reserves?

Your lack of knowledge about military rifles is equalled by the lack of knowledge about the US military. Reserve units have Abrams MBTs not M-60s. No Garands in Vietnam and the M-14 is held in high regard even today with elite units like the SEALS who can have any weapon they desire (including foreign) choosing it for some operations.

 

Thought they use the M-21 because it is the same basic gun excpet more modernized.

 

Gunter:
I've read stories about G.I.s in the Vietnam War that smashed the stocks of their M-16s against trees... in the hopes of being issued a replacement M-14. Firing a high-power .308 cal round, when you hit an enemy, he stayed where he laid when shot with an M-14 aka M1A.

The same couldn't always be said of the 5.56 M-16 round. Some argued it was better suited to the shorter engagement distances in which the Vietnam War was fought. Others argued the round would deflect if it struck foliage on the way to the target. Such was never a critisism against the M-14. The only negative I can think of concerning firing an M-14 is when firing in fully-auto mode, the barrel will climb with each shot.

If I was doing house-to-house fighting, I think I'd opt for a shotgun firing double-00 buckshot. Just because a weapon has been around for awhile doesn't mean it's any less lethal than when first introduced.

Today, the Springfield Armory has brought the SOCOM II a "sporter-ized" M1A... or M-14 into production, with a shorter carbine-style barrel and a picatinny rail fore-end chambered in .308 caliber.

Latest news is the US military and H&K are working to develop a replacement to the M-16. It is called the XM8. It can be configured by the soldier as a carbine, rifle or designated marksman/squad automatic weapon by simply switching-out various components. Look for a new cartridge as well, using a .30 cal Remington case in 6.8x43 or roughly similar to the .270 civilian chamberings. Yes, a replacement to the M-14/M4... which incidently has been in service for nearly 4 decades now.

Tim

 

We don't even know what's our MBT!
And yeah,our infantry is finally starting to modernised.But sometimes,being in the service myself,i can get disillusioned at times about our fighting capability..but i'll fight all right

 

I though some (A very small number very early on) M1 Garand and M1 Carbines were used by US forces, but I cannot be sure of where I heard that or the reliability of the source so I stand ready to be corrected...

 

I surely do hope that the M-16 gets replaced, I have heard that tests ahve been done on the XM-8 already which had good results but I think they claimed they werent good enough.

It is true that the M16 round would deflect off foliage, it was poroven to em during a comparison on the discovery chanel when they compared the m16 to teh Ak47 and they said you cannot compare the two.

It was 2, 2inch thick pieces of dense wood pine?
The M-16 bearly made a mark while teh Ak went right thru both blocks of wood. Than it was two cinder blocks, I think the M16 did nothing or craxck the first block and the Ak obviously went thru both.

I also think that the XM-8 is the only weapon being developed as a replacement for the agin M-16.

If you go to http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm the source most of us use for weapons, who can find a couple like the HK416, but I am sure there are much more than trying to replace the M-16 than on this site. It is a really good source