Top Ten Armies of today

other than they are very stealthy and when britain couldnt beat them a couple of hundred years ago we asked them to join our army,

 

Hi tj - we quickly established that in a real, no-holds-barred war, the USA would win. No question. I think every 'top 10' list is headed by the US.
We then moved on to discuss other issues, such as which was better trained... which is a thorny issue, and National pride pops up a bit!

 

Re: us

So what about the helecopter gunships? They are not small arms.

 

The to 2 would be China and the US dependant on the theatre.

Think about this .

If you have and dug in tank which weapon would be better to take it out, a 500 pound guided missile or a 2000 pound freefall bomb?

I think the 500 pounder is better.

 

In all truth, I think its pretty clear that any modern army can annihilate any WW2 army. I cant see that there is anything to argue about that. Like someone pointed out, an Apache would make mince meat of any tank column, would down any WW2 aircraft because of its thermal imaging gun that would be able to follow the WW2 aircraft everywhere, and would be able to seriously injure a WW2 battleship with its 16 Hellfire missiles. Most probably sinking the ship.

 

A fair summary. I hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, against a target as relatively slow as a gunship helicoper, WW2 AA weaponry would still be effective.

 

If youre using 20cm quadruple guns with radar trackind device, then yes, u can down a gunship.

Other AA weaponry can down a gunship as well.

 

this is unrelated , but how can you change your profile: for example i want people to know im from canada. im new to this website , and i want to know how you do it

 

Concerning the Top Ten armies , why isn't canada there there the most professional army in the world(in my opinion)

1.USA (the sheer industrial power of the US army gets it the #1 spot , plus manpower , and special forces , making it a very formidiple army)
2.Britain
3.Russia (allthough army has downsized since collapse of the U.S.S.R , it is still a great army)
4.Japan (Japan has always had a formidiple fighting force
5.Germany formidible as well
6.Canada extremely professional and dedicated
7.Israel
8.Sweden This may be a surprise at #8, but they are one of the best equipped armies in the world
9.Australia (they are there for the same reason as the canadian army , they are extremely well trained and dedicated
10.France
Honourable mentions: Italy, Finland, South Africa

 

Not really possible to judge that issue. Everyone's perspective is colored by their own biases. The assumption that because US troops have lots of support and gadgets that they would be helpless without them has no data to support it.
In my experience (USMC) Non commisioned officers were trained to adjust and make the best of whatever situation they were presented with. This versatility was trained, to the extent possible and the people that possessed it naturally were more likely to be promoted to positions of responsibility.
As far as distrusting people who approve of guns and fighting when it comes to covering your back(? LMAO) , I would have to say that I have the opposite opinion. A warrior culture within the military is necessary..all effective fighting forces have had it. The German Heer had it, the Japanese soldiers had it, the US Marines and paratroopers and the British commandos had it.
A military force that is "kindler and gentler" might make good peacekeepers but they don't make good war fighters.

 

It's not about "approving of war" and wishing to fight, it's about being sane while also being a soldier. You obviously don't want to have your back covered by a gun nut or a fanatic (presuming you are neither) because he is likely to make irrational decisions.

By the way, if the witness accounts of Band of Brothers have anything to say about the culture within the American Airborne then there certainly was no "warrior culture" in that these were guys who were only looking for the safest way to get through the war, which was to serve with the best men, guys you could rely on. It was a self-preserving mechanism, not a will to fight.

 

War is not "sane". In combat you do want to have your back covered by someone who has a proven capacity for violence. That is a minimum requirement in a combat soldier. Not all humans possess this capacity in equal amounts. Your ideas concerning "rational" behaviour might be irrational under the peculiar circumstances of combat.

Men do not discuss things like a "warrior culture" AKAIK. It is something that is created by the whole experience of joining/ training/ serving with an elite military unit. It is inherent in your comments without your realizing it..when you say "serve with the best men, guys you could rely on" you perhaps do not realize that you are ,in part, describing a warrior.
i.e. in war the "best men, guys you could rely on" are what?...you guessed it...warriors. Men with the capacity to succeed and even excel in combat = warriors.

 

All right, all right...

I personally feel there's a bit more to it than attitude or personality, though. That bit more is what I like to call "training".

 

The only queation in the first is China.

As for the second point I totally disagree. The British make good Fighters and good peacekeepers.

 

In terms of equipment:
US
UK
Germany
Dont know more... :lol:

BUT, the US sucks in winning the hearts (spelling) and minds of the people, they can fight a war, but maintaining the peace...no, than countries like The Netherlands ( :lol: ) UK and Germany are in front.

IMO, you have to be good in all aspects, the US is only good at fighting a war, so imo they are a bad army, because they can't fully complete the mission/objective, winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, they are trying, but they will not succeed.

 

Following your argument, the german army in WW2 was a bad army, because apparently they weren't really good at winning hearts either....

As for Iraq, I think it is not entirely fair to blame the american soldiers for the violence against them.
Tough they have the reputation of being trigger-happy, one must also know that they are in charge of the sunni tribal area, which was Saddam's base before the war.

I don't believe the british soldiers stationed there, have actually "won the hearts" of the iraqis, but in the british occupation zone there is a shiite population.
As the shiites represent the majority of the iraqi people they know that sooner or later they will dominate the country(One man one vote) and therefore have no reason to use violent methods.

In other countries, like Bosnia, Kosovo or Afghanistan, US soldiers are doing a fine peace keeping job, along with their british, french, german and other european allies.

 

In those countries there are not many US troops there.

 

There were when i was there.

 

I must bow to your greater knowledge.

 

In terms of effective weapons and material USA, Germany, and Britain has the best !

Its not all about the size of the army, its more about its effectiveness !

Russia's army is 'old' and out of date, and will be beaten in a war with any of the three above, eventhough they are many more, they lack technology and the budget !

KBO