World's Best Military?

Great Debates
21

Interseting point about the Israeli Army.

I remeber an assessment made by either an American or British general about 10 years ago that leaked out. His conclusion that was that despite being (essentialy) a conscript army it was unusually highly motivated but, in his view, it was third rate used to fighting fourth rate opponents.

On Special Forces: I’m not aware of what the US SEALS have done but the SAS do get a little practice (for example, just finished up in Sierre Leone) so it’s, for me, easier to assess them. Don’t think the Israeli’s are far behind in this category.

22

Altho I agree that Israel has possibly the most professional army, and great moral, Operation Desert Storm has shown that technology is the big war winner now. The US Army could likely wipe every Israeli tank out, without taking a single kill in return. We were killing Iraqi tanks that had no idea they were even in combat, let alone able to shoot back. True, lock an Israeli squad & A US squad in a warehouse, and I’ll bet on the Israelis coming out, but we could wipe them out without getting into smg range.

If we fought the Chinese, the only question would be, “Did we bring enuf ammo?”.

23

Sorry, forgot the Swiss thing. Germany didn’t invade because they needed somewhere close and neutral to hoard the loot. So it was a deal - we park the goods with you, you keep quiet and we don’t invade.

Swiss numbered accounts - 65 years and they still can’t find it all.

24

No all I am saying is that the French have a fairly good navy but it is no match for the US. I think it would come in 3rd or maybe 2nd. The UK also has a good navy with I believe some good subs.

25

As London_Calling said, many people believe that the banks are the reasons that the Nazis didn’t invade Switzerland. I don’t think that’s the whole story though, because don’t forget that many opponents/victims of the regime hid their money in Swiss banks also. Money that the german government would doubtless have been very happy to confiscate.

A patriotic swiss will tell you that the Axis powers didn’t invade Switzerland because they felt it wouldn’t be worth the effort (mountain roads, passes and bridges being mined, underground shelters for the civilian population, etc…) I personally think that Hitler didn’t bother because the swiss government was neutral and actually many of the german-speaking swiss viewed the Nazis favorably. (There were some swiss that were in favour of uniting with Germany, an Anschluss similar to Austria’s decision.) Fortunately for the swiss, the majority of the population (especially in the french and italian-speaking cantons) were in strong favour of remaining neutral.

One of the swiss army’s strong points is that it would be fairly quick to mobilize. All able-bodied males are “on call” until their fifties and keep a large part of their military equipment at home, so the army claims that in a few days the troops would be in a state of readiness.

26

The French Military strength??? Ok, let’s see:

A. They say an army travels on its stomache.

B. The French REM [whatever the initials are for ready to eat meals] are absolutely, hands down a better meal than what the American miliary eats. I had the unfortunate opportunity to eat both while waiting to be evacuated from a military mutiny in Africa… the wine, CHOCOLATE and brie cheese won me over.

I also collaborated with FORCE ONE, the French Army medical emergency unit, on a meningitis outbreak in Central Africa.
These guys brought everything with them including excellent wine which was beyond words after long working hours.

C. True to nature, the French know how to eat.

27

Interesting. I’m no expert but I find myself waffling on this. No one has responded to the bit in the OP about why Arab countries can’t seem to field an even half-way decent army (a view supported by the fourth-rate comment made by that general). Still, outnumbered 50:1 it takes something more than a third rate army to beat a fourth rate one. I’m also positive on that quote (perhaps paraphrased a bit) in the OP about Moshe Dayan. He was an Israeli general and Golda Meir was the Prime Minister(or whatever they have in Israel) so obviously some well placed people felt strongly about his abilities.

I’ve also heard good things about their air force. Most of their military equipment comes from the US so they get the good stuff but I’ve heard tell (can’t cite…just rumor) that they have on occasion even improved on the American design in the fighter jets they get.

Still, again and again I come to the point that with your back against the wall anyone will fight tenaciously. Who was it who said, “The prospect of death has a wonderful way of focusing the mind?”

28

I’m trying to locate the cite, but in the early stages of Hitler’s March (before he had a bunch of loot banked in Switzerland) he was asking his Field Marshalls about the possibility of attacking Switzerland.

Their response was essentially “Are You Insane!?”

  1. A well-trained citizen militia
  2. A well-equipped citizen militia
  3. A butt-load of citizen militia
  4. Impossible terrain

By the end of the Vietnam War, our troops/commanders were sufficiently experienced enough in Jungle Warfare that, if the political restraints had been removed and the domestic situation been less chaotic, we would’ve wiped the North hands down.

Someone said earlier that modern warfare is about technology; while it certainly plays a part, I disagree that it is necessarily a predominant factor.

I think modern warfare has moved beyond Forces and Training (at least for the U.S.) into Logistics and Information [Data] Management. We already know how to build good weapons systems, and recruit and effectively train good soldiers (sailors, airmen, sailors, etc.,); what we now seem to excel at is Material/Resource Management [Logistics] and Battlefield Intelligence [Informantion Management} In other words, “Support The Force” for the duration (long or short) and have the information [intel] to put it in the right place at the right time, ready to fight.

As to why the Arabs (even the Saudis) tend to second- or even third-rate forces is as much cultural as anything else. “Religious Correctness” seems to play as much an indoctrinating role in their forces as martial training, and socially, they seem to have a “If It’s God’s Will That We Win, Then We Will Win” attitude.

The Chinese’s best advantage is raw numbers, but their Army is recruited from the peasants, er, excuse me, the “Proletariat” or its Chinese equivalent. These are usually barely literate conscripts from their rural/agrarian sectors, and not their skilled industrial production sectors or professional technocrats.

In combat it makes for a rote-trained , rigidly disciplined technically marginally competent soldier with little or no battlefield initiative to do anything more than achieve the limited tactical objectives they’ve been assigned, relying on brute strength and sheer numbers to achieve success.

Plus, with the rigidly specialized troops the Chinese seem to have, the force integration of combat multiplier specialty units (engineers, special forces, airborne, airmobile and frontal aviation) becomes a lot more problematical. Hell, the Soviets practically perfected the Combined Arms Operations doctrines on which a large part of our own Air-Land Battle Doctrine is based, and even they couldn’t make it work for their client states with any kind of regularity!

The Chinese Officer Corp, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. These are the descendants of the people that produced the collective works of Sun-Tzu, which to this very day is still an excellent miltary treatise that is studied by many modern militaries around the world (including our own!). To add it all up: I wouldn’t worry too much about the capabilities of the individual Chinese soldier, at squad, platoon or even company level engagements. I’d worry considerably about what the Chinese Army would be capable of with competent leadership.

As the Chinese haven’t fought a major war in this generation, the quality of their military leadership, at both the tactical and strategic level, is hard to quantify, but no one ever lost a war for believing their enemy is stronger than he actually is. But if push came to shove, I think our best option would be to just dust of those old Vulcan 20mm anti-aircraft systems and redeploy them as Infantry Fire Support Vehicles. Just to pare the numbers down to something a little more manageable.

And AvalonGod: British and German tactical bombers? Elaborate, please? Are you talking about tac fighters used in a foward support role, like the F-16 and F-15E Strike Eagle? Or are you talking about a larger aircraft?

Best Armies:

  1. U.S.
  2. Germany
  3. Israeli
    (Japan gets an Honorable Mention, along with S. Africa’s Mosty Excellent Field Artillery)

Best Air Forces:

  1. U.S.
  2. British
  3. Israeli
    (Again, Japan gets Honorable Mention)

Best Navies:
1&2 tie) U.S./British (strictly qualitative; not numbers)
3) Japan

Special Forces:

  1. Britain
  2. Israel
  3. U.S.

ExTank

29

Throw in my two cents for what its worth

Best Army

  1. Israel
  2. US

Israel’s army has to be the most motivated, dedicated army on the face of the Earth. Surrounded by guys who truely dislike them, yet they go to work everyday.

The United States deffinately has the most technological toys, and a well trained Army to put them into action

Navy
1)US
2)GB

United States – one phrase: Carrier Battle Group
GB – Damn good subs

Air Force

  1. United States
  2. Isarel

See above factors for Army

The wild card for the United States; Is the government willing to use the military to its fullest? Examples have shown that an attempt to fight a “limited war” dosent work well. Does the government hand cuff the military, or do they let the military do its job?

Also, China? Give a million pesants a rifle and things get intersting really fast. I dont care how good your tech is, a 50 to 1 charge puts you at a distince disadvantage. (unless your Isarel)

30

ExTank - where have you been hiding ? Good to see you posting again.

The British/German strike plane/tactical bomber/air-to-ground plane/whatever would probably be the Tornado, which has a decent reputation as far as I know.

S. Norman

31

ExTank, if you could find a source for that, I would be eternally grateful.

32

The British Army and RAF are both handicapped by appalling supply and procurement problems. The Army in particular suffers from expensive, unreliable equipment (rifles, radios, accommodation, you name it) and the RAF does not possess anything like the USAF’s all-weather capability. Political pressure has played a major role in this, especially in the tension in choosing between US (usually proven technology), British (unproven but a job-creation scheme) or European (diplomatic choice) suppliers.

On the other hand, I believe that the training and discipline of the British forces is the equal of any other in the world, and the SAS are probably the best special forces outfit (if only due to having more experience in recent years).

33

One thing I thought interesting is that whenever I talk to anyone from GB about their past, they seem to actually fight for principle. Granted, they used to fight to hold on to the colonies, but they now seem to be genuinely on the side of “right” whatever that may be. However, I think that they must now rely on the US for many logistics support.

34

ExTank:

I was speaking more of the tactical support bombers…like the Jaguar, Tornado, etc…I guess the F/A-18 would be our modern equivalent, though this plane seems more like a light fighter to me.

35

We have to consider application of force as a major factor in how good a military force is as compared to other forces. While I cannot even imagine trying to invade the Swiss homeland (can you even imagine how many booby traps and ambush points they must have been able to set up in the Alps?) or China (for the matter of sheer force of numbers), neither of these countries seem to possess the capability of projecting these forces across the planet, like the United States does.

36

As for the issue of Arab countries fielding crappy armies…

The Shah of Iran built up one of the most impressive armies in recent history and so did the Iraqis ( Remember pre-Gulf War they were #4 in size). The difference between those two was that the Iraqis purchased many of their arms during the Cold War fire sales and, although they bought from both sides, many things (e.g. SCUDs) were from the Russian military program in the 50s. The Iranians under the Shah purchased a shitload of stuff that was more advanced, at one point in the 70s amassing more British-made Challenger tanks than the entire British Armed Forces possessed. The Revolution meant that we never got to see that army in action.

I would tend to think that when it comes to the other Arab states it’s not that they are so inept, rather a combination of factors (the fact that Israel is a big dawg with the biggest dawg’s backing, that many of these countries have been wracked by civil conflict, that many of them started modern development later than Europe, Israel , and the U.S.) makes them seem to be especially inept.
William L. Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Boulder: Westview Press, [1994]; ISBN 0-8133-0563-2)
This source is pretty good. Only a few factual inaccuracies in the whole thing and they mostly deal with the political dynamics in Lebanon. It should be read, however, with the knowledge that the author is a bit liberal.

37

Arnold W.: I’m trying to find the book or article I read that passage from, but trust me: The Wehrmacht’s Field Marshalls used considerably more tact than my post implied. I was just abbreviating for effect.

They most likely listed numerous reasons, variating on a general central theme that Switzerland is just too tough a nut to crack. I’m sure that their language, while respectful, was unilaterally unambiguous. Otherwise WW II might have been considerably shorter and less bloody, either from a lack of competent military leadership in Germany or all the dead German troops littering the hills and valleys of Switzerland.