Which country has the best soldiers?


Soldier strength  

151 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's N.1?

    • Americans
      83
    • Vietnamese
      1
    • Germans
      3
    • French
      3
    • British
      33
    • Japanese
      4
    • Chinese
      7
    • Koreans
      2
    • Russians
      1
    • Israelis
      14
  2. 2. Who's N.2?

    • Americans
      33
    • Vietnamese
      3
    • Germans
      11
    • French
      1
    • British
      51
    • Japanese
      6
    • Chinese
      12
    • Koreans
      3
    • Russians
      9
    • Israelis
      22


Recommended Posts

Which one were youy considering? Yes they do yell alot at least initially because they are trying to break your old habits and condition your mind to be more disciplind among other attributes that will serve you as a leader.

I haven't done too much research yet, but definitely not a naval or air academy. Westpoint- forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as far as wins and losses go, i'd say vietnam. regardless how you want to call it... battle of attrition(kills to death ratio), etc.. the fact remains and is recorded as such out of all of US involved wars, US could not accomplish it's mission to "liberate" or deter the communist spread through-out southern asia. = mission failed

David and Goliath war...

as far as the ppl i hear claiming a war in this century is won based of kills to deaths ratio, that's asinine.

ie... this current war that the US has declared "terrorism" for example, sure, one can state the fact that US is winning because of higher kill to death ratio compared to the opposing forces. my perdiction is the US will fail in it's ridiculous objective to force other countries to it's "will" of democracy/capitalistic views.

The US is on someone else's door step after all. In the 'nam war for example, the soliders had a hell of a time and lost a hell lot of men because what? They didn't know the terran. The 'nam knew the jungle inside and out. And knwoing their surroundings means everything. Same thing at Iraq. You can't truly win a war unless you are intergrated into a culture and conqure them from the inside out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i may have a skewed oppinion because im learning about WWII. But I voted Japenese #1 because they faught to the death in any way possible. And I voted Germans #2, despite the fact of the Holocaust, but they were soldiers who knew how to fight, and they never gave up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is on someone else's door step after all. In the 'nam war for example, the soliders had a hell of a time and lost a hell lot of men because what? They didn't know the terran. The 'nam knew the jungle inside and out. And knwoing their surroundings means everything. Same thing at Iraq. You can't truly win a war unless you are intergrated into a culture and conqure them from the inside out.

tho those factors do come into play, the fact remains if you're gonna start a fight/war with someone else, "know thy enemy". don't cry about the fact you didn't "know" this or that, after you couldn't complete your objective. simply put... a loss is a loss, sugar coat it if that helps you get by your day better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree but they werent an Army.....but they sure kicked USSR's buutt

Only because they were backed with US military equipment, especially the Stinger. The Afghans were not doing well because the Russian MI-24. But the American made stinger changed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanis did beat USSR, but how would they fair in a battle against a European country..... in Europe? Many of these armies aren't capable of anything but defending their own nation. Should they even be considered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if there is any basis to it, but all of my army buddies say that the best army would be composed of American tech, British officers, and Canadian soldiers. I know all about the Canadian training, but never really cared for comparing to other nations, so can't really say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanis did beat USSR, but how would they fair in a battle against a European country..... in Europe? Many of these armies aren't capable of anything but defending their own nation. Should they even be considered?

Well i don't want to get political but isn't that what an army is for? (defense)

I don't see a ministry of attack, it's ministry of defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afghanis did beat USSR, but how would they fair in a battle against a European country..... in Europe? Many of these armies aren't capable of anything but defending their own nation. Should they even be considered?

I concur... i'd give more credit to any country/pplz that are willing to die for their land over any perceived invading force. just goes to show you how well trained, funded, technically advanced military force one might have, can't beat "heart/will" of the ppl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a ministry of attack, it's ministry of defence.

Only because the word is more pallatable for the common people. In the US, prior to it being called the Department of Defense it was called the War Department. Its all about the wording to make it more acceptable, now a days they calle this being politically correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that, in order, the British, Germans, and Japanese soldiers are the best. The British have proven their capabilities three-hundred years ago, and even in North Africa in WWII. As for the Germans, they started both of the World Wars and would have succeeded had the Americans not interfered. In fact, I believe the Germans are the most motivated and committed. As for the Japanese, they defeated the European powers in Asia and conquered the continent with ease; they are also motivated and are very patriotic.

More like the British proved themselves for 300 years straight, maybe even longer. However, it must be kept in mind that the British army employed soldiers from all over the empire in its army, so credit must be given to units who weren't british, but still fought as part of the british army. e.g. The Bengal Lancers, the Gurkha's

The Japanese didn't really have anything terribly imposing infront of them when they rolled over the Pacific. Not saying they didn't do a heck of a good job at it, but there wasn't really all that much standing in their way .

On the first day of war in the Pacific, Japanese military forces-

Smashed at Wake Island with a large formation of heavy bombers...

Attacked the island of Guam with eighteen bombers and ordered into action its invasion fleet which, in the next three days, would overrun the American base...

Struck with heavy bomber formations against British defenses on the islands of Nauru and Ocean, lying between the Solomon and Gilbert Island chain...

Swept through the International Settlement at Shanghai and captured the crew of HMS Petrel...

Rushed aboard the American gunboat Wake and, while the crew slept, captured the warship intact; with a fine sense of irony the Japanese recommissioned the Wake in their own Navy as the Tataru ...

Sortied an invasion fleet along the east coast of Malaya; troops milled ashore from six transports and two destroyers at Singora and Patani. Other troops started a swift dash across the Kra Isthmus...

Sent large bodies of troops across the borders of French Indo-China (previously occupied by the Japanese through agreements with the French), into Thailand (Siam), meeting only light and sporadic resistance...

Attacked Singapore with powerful formations of dive and attack bombers and escorting Zero fighters from aircraft carriers cruising offshore...

Smashed against British defenses at Kota Bahru, Malaya, in the face of unexpectedly stiff resistance. Preceeding the invasion was a powerful barrage from an invasion fleet of heavy warships; forty dive bombers shattered installations at the Kota Bahru airfield to destroy most of the British air-power in the immediate area...

Sank a crippling percentage of Allied merchantmen discovered by their aircraft and fleet units, including three American, forty-one British, one Greek, and seven Panamanian cargo vessels. A bare 200 000 tons of shipping slipped away from the Philippines beneath marauding Japanese planes...

Eliminated the Hawaiian Islands as a source of danger or interference to Japanese operations elsewhere in the Pacific and Asia, and in so doing wrecked much of the Pacific battle fleet and inflicted crippling losses on the AAF and Naval Airpower...

Cut communications and supply lines across most of the Pacific...

And, in the Philippines, smashed American air strength on the island of Luzon by wiping out a major force of fighters, heavy bombers, and other aircraft and devastating air defense and ground facilities...

That was on the first day of the war.

- p 185-186, Martin Caidin's Flying Forts: The B-17 in World War II

They did fight like mad at keeping the Americans from island-hopping too quickly though.

I think it's hard to say who has the best soldiers over all. Every country has/had a regiment that at one time, or perhaps numerous times, that has distinguished itself on the battlefield; and at the same time, that country has likely aslo fielded troops that weren't good for much other than catching bullets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MEMO.

Yes, an army is mainly used for defense, but do you always solely defend your nation? You have to defend your interests, ally nations, etc. Take WWII as the perfect example. How would the US defend itself without attacking the axis powers and defending its allies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i don't want to get political but isn't that what an army is for? (defense)

I don't see a ministry of attack, it's ministry of defence.

yes there is.. it's a new coined term the bush admin. likes to call "preemptive defence". :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys forgot about the Canadian Forces, which are some of the best trained soldiers in the world.

I haven't seen them in action too much though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MEMO.

Yes, an army is mainly used for defense, but do you always solely defend your nation? You have to defend your interests, ally nations, etc. Take WWII as the perfect example. How would the US defend itself without attacking the axis powers and defending its allies?

By sitting on it's hands and going 'nope, sorry, don't wanna get into thi- OH CRAP! JAPAN JUST BOMBED US! OH IT'S ON!" perhaps?

If I remember correctly, before the US had officially entered the war, they were supplying the british (via Canada iirc) with war materials, but in a manner that couldn't be considered war materials.

I haven't seen them in action too much though

And who exactly HAVE you seen IN action? Canada's army spends a lot more time on UN deployments, than invading other peoples countries for oil or personal vendetta.

Go read some history books, Canadians have fought in the Boer war, WWI, WWII, Korea. There could have even been some Canadians in the British garrisons that fought in the war of 1812. Oh-yeah, you bombed some in Afghanistan, too. There are Canadian soldiers still getting killed in Afghanistan, btw.

In WWI, it was an all-canadian line that took Vimy Ridge, after everyone else had their chance.

Canadian snipers have beaten US snipers in competitions, too. I don't know if it still stands, but a Canadian sniper had the record for the longest sniper kill, during the invasion of Afghanistan.

I watched a sniping competition between US, British, and Canadian soldiers on TV one time, the US and British soldiers had names and faces during the interviews, but the Canadians had their faces blacked out, and no names.

Edited by Scudworth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen them in action too much though

Well, that's because our last real war was Korea. We were quite good in WWII, it's just that we don't really have the numbers to wow onlookers. Afterall, we got Juno beach on D-Day. And don't forget the Battle of Vimy Ridge, and Passchendale in WWI.

Oh, if we wan't to go waaay back, there is also the War of 1812 ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys forgot about the Canadian Forces, which are some of the best trained soldiers in the world.

It was Canada that bought the junk, lemon subs from the British. Canada does not have enough resources to even patrol its own territory, such as its northern waters. Many have argued that the US spends too much money on its military, and maybe it does. At the current rate of spending, though, Canada will have virtually no military within 20 years. Even basic upkeep of military equipment is incredibly expensive. A soldier who would otherwise be stellar is reduced to little value without the proper requipment.

At least PM Harper is smart enough to start talking to US again about joint defense, etc. Canada may eventually become the 51st state not because of a US invasion but because of Canada's request for the US to defend it completely.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's because our last real war was Korea. We were quite good in WWII, it's just that we don't really have the numbers to wow onlookers. Afterall, we got Juno beach on D-Day. And don't forget the Battle of Vimy Ridge, and Passchendale in WWI.

Oh, if we wan't to go waaay back, there is also the War of 1812 ;).

Don't forget Korean War, and a limited silent capacity in Vietnam, and even though its not an official war it is a combat zone - Afghanistan, and still serving with distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no army better then the Israeli army, if you take the Israeli army and make it the size of the American army or British army no one in the world would be able to beat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA #1, Israel #2

I personally think the US should just give the Israelies the go-ahead to thump the middle east. Iran and Syria can pound their chests as much as they want, but I think we all know who as the real muscle over there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is-US has the best and most advanced military technology, US can win a war by just bombing the $h!t out of places from 500 miles away...so a lot of times, out soldiers might not even have to engage in hand-to-hand combat. We just see it in Iraq because we are mainly working as police/patrolmen...therefore we are more vulnerable. But if it ever came to just simply defending ourselves, US has the technology to take most everyone on and win, hands down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you but no. I'd have to be out of options before I considered joining any military.

I could not agree more! I was forced to serve in the SADF (South African army) during the apartheid era(roughly translated: meaning separation [of the races]) for two years and unless you really are inclined towards that sort of life it is a pretty crappy job, unless you are at the top of the pile you take orders from everyone! I fought in a bush war that was pretty harsh and I can tell you that we often fought with Israeli soldiers against Cuban, Soviet and Fapla forces and I can tell you that they (The Israelis) were really tough sons of bitches! I would rate then, even today, as of the best soldiers in the world! The ROK Marine Corps (South Korea) are considered by most to best in the world and have never tasted defeat on the battlefield!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.