Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What country has the best army? I mean soldiers equipment, and training etc. Not the amount of soldiers the country has. So who do you think and why?

At 1/24/08 07:15 PM, Grammer wrote: Does have the most nukes count as a factor?

Haha! Im afraid not :P

Erm, the US.
EDN THREAD, lol

The USA. No contest.

Most aircraft carriers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air craft_carriers_by_country

Largest, most powerful aircraft carriers:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w orld/carriers.htm

Largest navy:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_na v_per-military-navy-personnel

Largest Air Force:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_ai r_for_per-military-air-force-personnel

Most well funded military:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_ex p_dol_fig-military-expenditures-dollar-f igure

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_mi l_cap_mil_cap_def_bud-military-capabilit ies-defense-budget

Given my military knowledge (which is admittedly quite limited), here's how I'd do a global military power ranking (only considering the ability to defend and project power, doesn't include strategic weapons like ICBMS):

1. USA
2. UK
3. France
4. Russia
5. China
6. India
7. Israel

I would like to see a comparable list from someone with a better background, like TheMason.

At 1/24/08 07:37 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Erm, the US.
EDN THREAD, lol

Why? Personaly I think English troops have better training. Mabey they don't have the numbers, but they are very well trained.

At 1/24/08 07:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: The USA. No contest.

Nice list, but I said trained. I know they have LOTS of money and soldiers, but I said trained soldeirs.
Ok assume all nations have the same amount of troops.

All that considered America just has one ofthe best trainedtroops in the world. theyve done experiments on the psyci of soldiers during different wars. and the U.S.just know how to train their troops for everything, thats why thousands died and only like several american lives were shed.

At 1/24/08 07:53 PM, PubicTears wrote:

At 1/24/08 07:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: The USA. No contest.

Nice list, but I said trained. I know they have LOTS of money and soldiers, but I said trained soldeirs.
Ok assume all nations have the same amount of troops.

Okay, but it's pretty reasonable to assume that the degree of training is proportional to the amount of funds, unless you have a better way of measuring training...

And besides, even if we eliminate size differences (no clue why we'd do that), the US would still probably win because of its vast financial resources, navy, and air force.

Oh lawdy, I can't wait for Cellar and Mason to show up, this will be mighty interesting.

Well supposedly We've got 1 heck of a shot in with our snipers in the Canadian Forces.
took out someone in Afganistan at 2430 meters with a TAC50. ( a meter is just a little bit longer than a yard ,about 3 inches longer)

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/archive/inde x.php/t-14684.html

But , an achievement like that isn't going to hold up against "the most aircraft carriers".

We should define a more concrete scenario. In some situations, skilled snipers would be very useful, while in other situations, they would be close to worthless.

Are we arguing about the ability to:

maintain air superiority over a region?
project military power into a region?
control the seas?
resist foreign occupation through unconventional means?
hold territory against an invasion?
destroy another nation?

All of the above ^^^ objectives require different types of armed forces, and some nations have militaries only designed to fulfill a few of those objectives. For example, Taiwan does not have any strategic bombers (limiting their capacity to project power), but does have the ability to hold territory against an invasion and secure air superiority.

In other words, the question of "Who has the best military?" is somewhat vague.

The best military in the full-spectrum of aspects is obviously the US. The US has the most and best technology, the most innovative and comprehensive tactics, and some of the most educated and trained officers and troops. The ability the US has to dominate another military and project force around the glove is unrivaled by anyone else in the world, nobody else even comes close. In fact, the only other country in the world that can even slightly resemble the power projection the US has is the UK, yet they are still vastly inferior, and the technologies they have is dependent on the US in the first place.

It's a simple fact.

The amount of technology the US has and employs is so overwhelmingly superior to the next best militaries that it's almost ridiculous for people to say otherwise.

- The US is the only country to employ a fully-independent satellite battle network.
- The US is the only country with stealth aircraft: with stealth long range bombers, stealth air-dominance fighters.
- The US is the only country to employ supercarriers and has way more than everyone else. In fact, just the Amphibious Assault ships the US navy has to support the US Marines are more numerous and more advanced than other nations' dedicated carriers.
- The US is the only country with a fully self-provided, fully-independent arsenal of precision weapons, GPS-guided missiles, bombs etc..

The US is superior to every other country in ever aspect, not just in high-end force multiplier technologies, but in quality of ground forces, naval forces, air forces, special forces etc... that can all work together in a seamless, coordinated, mutually-beneficial command and control structure that can allow high-tempo operations across the entire spectrum of missions.

Now, I'm going to laugh when a British person comes in here and starts talking about the SAS, and comparing them to regular US Army units as if that's a fair comparison.

At 1/24/08 08:17 PM, Al6200 wrote: We should define a more concrete scenario.

resist foreign occupation through unconventional means?
hold territory against an invasion?

Ok then if they were the scenarios. Who do you think would get the job done.

And dont say america if you are american or what ever country you your from.

At 1/24/08 08:28 PM, PubicTears wrote:

America would probably win at all of the scenarios I listed, however some would be closer than others. For example, a battle of air superiority or sea power would be an easy win for America, but the ability to resist foreign occupation would be far more even.

Although I have to say, I don't think America would fare too poorly in the long-term foreign occupation scenario.

CellarDoor, do you have any comments on my #10 rankings. Any suggestions or changes?

At 1/24/08 08:32 PM, Al6200 wrote: CellarDoor, do you have any comments on my #10 rankings. Any suggestions or changes?

Well you gave 7, but it's not a clearcut as that because it depends on the situation.

If you're talking about best technology it would go:

1. USA
2. UK
3. Israel
4. Russia
5. France

etc..

But in across the full spectrum of all things and the most capable to defeat the other countries in a head-to-head engagement, given troop numbers, logistical power, technology etc.. assuming no nukes were involved:

1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France

etc..

But of course it would depend on the situation, whether it was over land, whether the countries were trying to complete destroy the other militaries, or just take control of their countries. Whether they were trying to repel an invasion and were acting defensively in nature etc..

It's incredibly complicated. Even though Russia's military is shitty in a lot of areas, especially its navy, it has a huge ground force that could defeat most others if the war was over Europe. Although China's military is shitty in many areas, it could fend off an attack by most powers, including the US (for a while at least). Even though the UK has force projection and relatively high-end technology, it doesn't have the logistical power or the numbers of equipment and personnel to maintain an operation for long without US support, especially if it was a regional war against a large power like China or Russia.

This issue is by no means absolute, except for the fact that the US has an upper hand in basically any conceivable scenario... unless of course the mission was a counter-insurgency in a large country like China or Russia.

So I dunno. My rankings would vary a lot depending on the situation.

At 1/24/08 08:28 PM, PubicTears wrote: And dont say america if you are american or what ever country you your from.

Oh, then I guess I'll have to go with some random shitty country. Even though America obviously has the best military.

Yeah, that totally makes sense...

At 1/24/08 08:48 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 1/24/08 08:28 PM, PubicTears wrote: And dont say america if you are american or what ever country you your from.

Oh, then I guess I'll have to go with some random shitty country. Even though America obviously has the best military.

;
Hey, you forgot about our sniper... & we got like 2 tanks as well ................What, ones in the shop.
Ok, Ok, we got 1 good tank & one the shop , but it'll be ready soon & we'll be back full strength.

At 1/24/08 08:54 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Hey, you forgot about our sniper... & we got like 2 tanks as well ................What, ones in the shop.
Ok, Ok, we got 1 good tank & one the shop , but it'll be ready soon & we'll be back full strength.

TWO tanks???

Canada will soon be on the way to world domination.

The majority of the views seem to have go to America. I would have to agree they have the best tech and alot of soliders at the disposal. Having said that who do you think has the best special forces and why. But then again it would also depend upon the scenario.
The British SAS and SBS are pretty amazing and also the US Navy SEALS.

At 1/24/08 08:48 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 1/24/08 08:28 PM, PubicTears wrote: And dont say america if you are american or what ever country you your from.

That came out wrong! Haha. What I ment was, don't just say your own country for the reason its your own country. Have a good reason.

At 1/24/08 08:59 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 1/24/08 08:54 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Hey, you forgot about our sniper... & we got like 2 tanks as well ................What, ones in the shop.
Ok, Ok, we got 1 good tank & one the shop , but it'll be ready soon & we'll be back full strength.

TWO tanks???

;
Let me tell you dude, if gas wasn't so expensive we'd be driving them all over the place.

Canada will soon be on the way to world domination.

;
Your right , why just today 1 of our subs (you know the ones we bought used from the British for like a trilliuon billion gazillion dollars ! Well it was out in Bedford basin chugging along smoke blowing everyewhere & when I cam eback from the office a couple hours later it was still out there & it was still afloat. How do you like that 'eh.
Soon we might even have a working sub to protect the beach our tanks are on.

At 1/24/08 09:02 PM, PubicTears wrote: Having said that who do you think has the best special forces and why. But then again it would also depend upon the scenario.
The British SAS and SBS are pretty amazing and also the US Navy SEALS.

I'm gonna go with DEVGRU (SEAL Team SIX) as the most hardcore special forces.

At 1/24/08 09:06 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/24/08 08:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: - The US is the only country to employ a fully-independent satellite battle network.

I'm thinking ion cannon, what about you?

You don't know what you're talking about.

A battle network is a communications system, not a weapons system. The US has a military battle network based on satellite comm links, and this integrates forward deployed assets with support assets, and is all connected to command and control.

Instead of using just terrestrial radio, the US military uses satellite communications. A unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) over Iraq can send its camera data via satellites to a general in the US who can see it on a screen. Or that data could be sent to theater-based commanders who can set up missions based on that intelligence, or it could be sent directly to infantry units so that they can know what's going on ahead of them before they move forward. Or... it could be sent to an aircraft carrier who can then send in its F18s to bomb the targets it identifies.

The US is the only country with the ability to comprehensively share information like this.

At 1/24/08 07:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: The USA. No contest.

1. USA
2. UK
3. France
4. Russia
5. China
6. India
7. Israel

How the hell is Britain number two? We're too small to be number two. I demand Britain start crashing it's jets and aircraft carriers on purpose!

But seriously, this has been bothering me for a while.

What's the new jet called that was designed by the Americans, it was going to replace the harrier jump jet. It also has stealth capabilities. Aww fuck this is going to drive me nuts,

At 1/24/08 09:19 PM, Brick-top wrote: What's the new jet called that was designed by the Americans, it was going to replace the harrier jump jet. It also has stealth capabilities. Aww fuck this is going to drive me nuts,

F35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The US is funding most of it, the Brits only give a little bit of money for research and development but they buy them for the same price the US does.

At 1/24/08 08:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

1. USA
2. UK
3. Israel
4. Russia
5. France

I agree, although I'm not sure why you'd put Russia over France. It seems like France is pretty close to Britain in terms of man-power and expenditures.

But in across the full spectrum of all things and the most capable to defeat the other countries in a :head-to-head engagement, given troop numbers, logistical power, technology etc.. assuming no :nukes were involved:

Like, a war fought over a third territory? Is it to gain land for a specific purpose, or is it just trying to destroy the enemy?

1. USA
2. Russia
3. UK
4. China
5. France

I think that list is pretty good, although I would swap the UK and Russia, for pure virtue of its air force and navy - which are especially important for an island nation.

This issue is by no means absolute, except for the fact that the US has an upper hand in basically any :conceivable scenario... unless of course the mission was a counter-insurgency in a large country :like China or Russia.

Such a scenario is ridiculously one-sided. Although I agree that the US could probably not hold off an insurgency in such a large nation. I'm a little twirked at people who use Iraq as an "example" of America's military weakness, without considering the highly ambitious nature of America's political goals.

So I dunno. My rankings would vary a lot depending on the situation.

Agreed.

At 1/24/08 09:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: F35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The US is funding most of it, the Brits only give a little bit of money for research and development but they buy them for the same price the US does.

That's it. It's been driving me crazy since this morning. Why I was thinking about it I dont know.

It's very pretty.

US Marine Corp.

What have I got to say?

But the SAS are pretty cool

At 1/24/08 09:26 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/24/08 09:22 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: F35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The US is funding most of it, the Brits only give a little bit of money for research and development but they buy them for the same price the US does.

That's it. It's been driving me crazy since this morning. Why I was thinking about it I dont know.

It's very pretty.

Meh, it's alright.

As I said, the US is doing almost all of the funding. The JSF program was created because NATO allies couldn't maintain parity with the US in technology, their domestic aircraft weren't advanced enough. So the JSF is designed to create commonality in air power to simplify NATO operations and make sure that the US doesn't have to carry everyone else's weight in NATO operations in the future.

But, it's inferior to the F22, which the US isn't giving to anybody else.

At 1/24/08 09:28 PM, Grammer wrote: Fuck, you said battle network, what do you expect me to think?

I didn't expect YOU to think anything.

Anyway, we're in a discussion about military issues. You'd figure that someone, even you, would at least attempt to understand what someone was talking about before making comments about it.

I don't spend all time day all day researching this stuff

Yeah, so instead you jumped in made a comment, while knowing precisely jackshit about what you were commenting on.

Smart.

At 1/24/08 09:24 PM, Al6200 wrote: I agree, although I'm not sure why you'd put Russia over France. It seems like France is pretty close to Britain in terms of man-power and expenditures.

Well I was talking strictly about technology.

The UK gets a lot of US technology, the French do too, but to a much lesser extent. They try to develop more of their own high-end equipment so that they can be less dependent on the US, so they miss out on some of the things the UK has.

I put the Russians over France because although the Russian military has issues, they are developing a lot of things that are almost equal to the US equivalents. The Russians just have a hard time paying for it, and deploying it to the full extent that other countries can.

Like, a war fought over a third territory? Is it to gain land for a specific purpose, or is it just trying to destroy the enemy?

I'm thinking a total war.

I think that list is pretty good, although I would swap the UK and Russia, for pure virtue of its air force and navy - which are especially important for an island nation.

The UK doesn't have the manpower or logistical power to maintain a war for very long, not against Russia. Even if the UK employed its entire effort against Russia, it could only last a short time without the US coming in.

This issue is by no means absolute, except for the fact that the US has an upper hand in basically any :conceivable scenario... unless of course the mission was a counter-insurgency in a large country :like China or Russia.

Such a scenario is ridiculously one-sided.

That's why I mentioned it.

Although I agree that the US could probably not hold off an insurgency in such a large nation. I'm a little twirked at people who use Iraq as an "example" of America's military weakness, without considering the highly ambitious nature of America's political goals.

Right.

The war in Iraq and its perceived failures cannot in anyway be used to determine the power the US would have against someone else's military. The entire dynamic is different, and if you actually put it into context and take political failures out of the equation, the Iraq war has been tactically successful for the US.

It's pretty stupid when people will use Iraq and say "lolz Americans can't even stop the insurgents, how could they stop another military?"

They fail to realize that a counter-insurgency is incredibly complicated. The US can't even use its full power because we have to juggle political objectives at the same time. The insurgents hide among civilians, dress like civilians, and will be called civilians when they are killed by US troops. There are varying, criss-crossing alliances between the government we're supporting, and the Shi'a insurgents that are supported by Iran, periodically fight US forces etc.. There is no single group to fight, to uproot and take land from. The US has to use enormous amounts of restraint, this wouldn't be true in a conventional war though.

If the US actually used it's full power like it would in the event of a large-scale conventional war between it and another country, Iraq would have been pacified a long time ago... except there'd be millions and millions of deaths, and that would have been unacceptable.