I know this is a subjective assessment but what better place for it than Great Debates? That being the case my opinions below are very subjective but they are the impressions I am left with from other discussions and readings. For the sake of argument assume a man-to-man basis else we can end the discussion quickly by merely saying the US is the best military if for no other reason than it could eventually overwhelm any other single state’s military from sheer size and depth of resources.
Army
Israel
Vietnam
Navy
United States
Great Britain
Air Force
Israel
United States
Special Forces
Israel
United States/Great Britain (tie between SEALs and SAS)
** Logistical Ability (able to get what you need where and when you need it)**
United States (by FAR)
Former Soviet Union/Great Britain
While it sure looks like I have a bent for Israel I am neither Israeli or even Jewish. Maybe it comes from their position of being surrounded by enemies dedicated to their destruction but the Israeli’s have shown a simply stunning ability to fight. To wit: The Six Day War had them outnumbered nearly 50:1 and they spanked Egypt, Syria and Jordan The Arabs had their heads neatly handed to them in that war. I think it was President Johnson(?) who told Golda Meir that he’d give any three of our generals for Moshe Dayan. She said fine, she’d take General Electric, General Motors and General Dynamics.
As for Vietnam in the Army category it’s not so much that they’re great shots or something but that they could go so far with so little. American troops probably couldn’t move half as far on what Vietnamese troops ate (or rather didn’t eat). They also had a zealots bravery. Crazy, perhaps, but motivated nonetheless.
One last thing. Why do Arabs seem to field miserable armies (at least in the last 100 years or so)? Bad generals? All too willing to die for Allah (hence foolish rushes and such things)? Or is it simply that anyone would look foolish trying to stand toe-to-toe with Israel or the US massed forces?
The Swiss - those guys who guard the Pope - the one who got shot?? Sorry I couldn’t resist.
Jeff42, you should check out the WSJ today. There’s a book review article on the US’s military technical capacity; basically the author of the books states that the American military’s diminishing strength [40% budget cuts since 1990] is beginning to show. He makes it sound as if the military is running around in Ford Edsel’s with Atari computers. You sound like you know a bit about the military. I would be interested in hearing your take on this guy’s position. I understand that he once was on the Joint Chief of Staff under Clinton…
Feh. For an army? China. They could overrun ANYONE with sheer numbers. And defensive measures would be cannon fodder, in a pathetic attempt to stymie the oncoming waves of attackers.
Just out of curiosity why the Swiss army? What have they done to prove themselves? I’ve heard that tucked away in their mountains they can be formidable but without the convenience of defensive terrain and home-court knowledge how good would they really be?
Kiffa:
I appreciate the vote of confidence on what I know but I’m not sure it’s all that good. Still, I’m always happy to spout my opinions! I’ll check out that WSJ article as soon as I can.
Jeff I agree with you on Israel having the best air force and special forces But I think that then world’s best army would go to the USA and (If were counting) the former Soviet Union. The Chinese have a great deal of man power but are ill equipped and don’t have much tanks. And for the navy as much as I hate to say it France on account that they have the only non-us nuclear powered aircraft carrier in uses.
matt_mcl - the Japanese have a fairly well-equipped military (examples of equipment here. Couldn’t find any indications of strength, but I would assume about the same as the UK.
I think he was saying France is the only other country that has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. How this makes them better than the US with half a dozen of the beasts I’ll never know.
Mr. Cynical:
Like I said in the OP sheer numbers isn’t quite fair for this discussion. Think of having only (say) 10,000 men on each side from any two armies you care to pick (or 2 carrier battle groups or 3 special forces teams or whatever). Now face them off in single-elimination tournaments. Who would get the gold medal?
As an aside just because I might say the Israeli’s have the best army troops by no means says that anyone else’s army sucks. In fact, if they’re pissed off, I’d take US soldiers on my side any day. With a serious fire lit under their asses US troops will open-up a giant can of Whoop-Ass on the enemies head and won’t bother taking names. Problem with US troops is getting them that riled up. Israeli troops seem to be more consistent but then again that could be chalked up to the fact they have nowhere else to go if they lose. Surrounded by enemies and with the Med at their backs giving-up and walking away really isn’t an option.
It’s kinda hard to say…that’s why I started this thread…to see what others thought.
The most bad-ass soldiers I ever worked with were from Uzbekistan. You can’t knock people whose national hero is Ghengis Khan. I was working with US. SF at the time and they said they would never want to meet the Uzbeks in battle.
But there really are so many details…who is the commander, what kind of terrain, motivation of troops to fight, where is the fight…all variable outside of training. The US got beat in Vietnam, but if the commanders had been free to fight as they wanted would we have won? Maybe. If we had fought on open fields rather than in the jungle (and home turf) of the VC would we have won? Absolutely.
mattk is right about the Japanese. It’s not relevant to the OP (which disregards quantity in favor of quality), but the Japanese are the world’s fourth largest defense spenders (no, not as a portion of their GOP - I’m talking their total budgets here). I know the original reference to the Japanese was tongue-in-cheek, but I just had to get that fact out there since I run into the same misconceptions all the time. Their army isn’t called Army and their navy isn’t called Navy, but they still have hundreds of main battle tanks with laser integrated fire control, dozens of destroyers with American-type guided missiles, F-15s, shore-based anti-shipping missiles, and probably some knives and pointed sticks. No nuclear stuff though.
Qualitatively … that’s a tough question. The U.S. has a lot of recent battle experience, but I can’t really assess morale. The Israelis and British are qualitatively excellent. I’d imagine the whole Warsaw Pact is a freakishly mixed bag … take Spetznatz (spelled wrong, probably) versus some vodka-soaked reserve unit in Siberia.
In any case, as I’ve suggested above, if you’re talking about American technology it is difficult to justify excluding the Japanese (in conventional arms). They have a huge array of U.S. technology, from jet fighters and Harpoon missiles to Aegis systems and doctrine. Needless to say, they have no combat experience to back it up, so they lose points for that.
OK, the Swiss Army got my vote for doing the job (keeping Switzerland unoccupied by foreign powers) without firing a shot in anger. For a European country, that’s quite a track record - and it HAS to be the most efficient way to use an army.
The Swiss did this by staying neutral and not having anything really worth taking (either as a strategic location or for plunder). I bet if Hitler won or at least held on to Europe he’d eventually have gotten around to Switzerland and the Swiss would have lost. I’ll grant the Switzerland would be a tough nut to crack however. The countries basic strategy seems to be, “Tough enough to not be worth the effort.”
Avalongod:
I’m curious about som eof your choices (I’m not slamming you or anything…this is clearly a subjective opinion post so unless you say Bora Bora has the finest navy in the world you can probably get away with most anything here).
Army:
France? Post Napolean how do you figure? They got beat on in two straight World Wars. The second time they lost practically out of the gate.
Fighter Planes:
France again? Maybe I’m behind but I thought they were still married to the delta-wing Mirage. Can’t say as I can speak to their pilot’s abilities though but I’d speculate Israel and Great Britain could fly rings around them.
Nononono…I said the French Army had one of the worst rifles…I threw in that added category for fun, and apparently just caused confusion.
As far as the fighter planes…I should have said MAKERS of some of the best planes, not flyers. I believe the French have always made some decent Delta wings.
