What's make a army strong ?

[UoUo]

History ?

Technology ?

Size ?

What do you think is the top 10 ?

I think :

1 - Usa
2 - Rusia
4 - China
5 - hm....i don't know...i think germmany...but i am not sure.....
6 - Israel
7 - France
8 - India
9 - I heard good thing about the Swizz Army.
10 - It could be north koria

[digrar]

I think I could find a spot for the Poms in that list.
I think that training, comand and control ( from the smallest sub unit to the army as a whole) equipment and motivation are all factors in a good Army.

[Herrmannek]

Good cooks.

[UoUo]

Good cooks.

In that case...France is the winner. rofl

[warchild1/27scout]

training, training, technology, training.

[UoUo]

And please give me you'r top 10 list.

p-)

[warchild1/27scout]

1.usa 2.britain 3.russia 4.isreal 5.germany 6.austrailia 7.france 8.spain 9.italy 10.poland

[Herrmannek]

Good cooks.

In that case...France is the winner. rofl

I didn't say this is only factor. Advice try other national kitchens


Motivation&Morale this is a major factor.

List like above.

[Tiger]

1 - Usa
2 - Rusia
4 - China
5 - hm....i don't know...i think germmany...but i am not sure.....
6 - Israel
7 - France
8 - India
9 - I heard good thing about the Swizz Army.
10 - It could be north koria

LOL China, India, Russia and North Korea in the top 10... rofl

And where is the UK?

(and its Swiss army, not Swizz army :roll: )

[Kriz]

The reason why the troops of the army are fighting ? Are they abroad like USA trops in Iraq at this moment or are they like defending their own country ?
That not only is of huge importance to morale but also to the population behind the troops.

[Seraphim]

And who should be in the top ten instead of NK, China and Russia?

Canada?....lol

[UoUo]

1 - Usa
2 - Rusia
4 - China
5 - hm....i don't know...i think germmany...but i am not sure.....
6 - Israel
7 - France
8 - India
9 - I heard good thing about the Swizz Army.
10 - It could be north koria

LOL China, India, Russia and North Korea in the top 10... rofl

And where is the UK?

(and its Swiss army, not Swizz army :roll: )

ops...i forgot the UK...

1 - Usa
2 - Uk
4 - Rusiia
5 - hm....i don't know...i think germmany...but i am not sure.....
6 - China
7 - Israel
8 - France
9 - India
10 - It could be north koria


China has great army...Russia don't have great army ? oh...welll...

:roll:

and soory...i don't a good english...so what ? try to speak hebrew.

:roll:

[Vance]

It's ok UoUo, I will teach you. :D

For my list:

1. USA
2. UK
3. Poland
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. France
7. Germany
8. NK
9. Russia
10. China

[UoUo]

It's ok UoUo, I will teach you. :D

For my list:

1. USA
2. UK
3. Poland
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. France
7. Germany
8. NK
9. Russia
10. China

i whould be happy. :)

and were is israel ? and poland before Russia ? ha ?

[Shake n Bake]

Discipline!! Men must be broken before you can properly train them.

[Herrmannek]

Poland before Russia

Thanks, but who knows Poland kicked russian asses few times, maybe can one more ;)

[UoUo]

Poland before Russia

Thanks, but who knows Poland kicked russian asses few times, maybe can one more ;)

i don't know about poland...but is hard to belive that they are before Rusiia...after all...Rusiia was a world super power...

[Gringo]

1. US - they have a heck of a big army and loads of technology, unfortunatly have not been able to perfect an ideal IFF.
2. UK - the best trained soldiers in the world (IMO), but unfortunately lack in reliable technology(eg SA80)
3. Germany - They have some good technology (eg G36)
4. Australia
5. Poland - tough fighters since WW2
6. Israel
7. Canada
8. Russia - BIG army, but very corrupt
9. Norway
10. Spain

[UoUo]

1. US - they have a heck of a big army and loads of technology, unfortunatly have not been able to perfect an ideal IFF.
2. UK - the best trained soldiers in the world (IMO), but unfortunately lack in reliable technology(eg SA80)
3. Germany - They have some good technology (eg G36)
4. Australia
5. Poland - tough fighters since WW2
6. Israel
7. Canada
8. Russia - BIG army, but very corrupt
9. Norway
10. Spain

with all the respect for the polish army...israel army is much stronger then the polish army.

technology
fighters
money..israel is a westren country....i think poland is quite advance but to as israel....

[Herrmannek]

Poland before Russia

Thanks, but who knows Poland kicked russian asses few times, maybe can one more ;)

i don't know about poland...but is hard to belive that they are before Rusiia...after all...Rusiia was a world super power...

Russian was world super power until we stoped sending them potatos & onion.

[Tiger]

Poland is a Western country too now... Poland is in NATO and nearly in the EU...


1. US - they have a heck of a big army and loads of technology, unfortunatly have not been able to perfect an ideal IFF.
2. UK - the best trained soldiers in the world (IMO), but unfortunately lack in reliable technology(eg SA80)
3. Germany - They have some good technology (eg G36)
4. Australia
5. Poland - tough fighters since WW2
6. Israel
7. Canada
8. Russia - BIG army, but very corrupt
9. Norway
10. Spain

Where is France? And i vote for Sweden too...

[budanski]

1. China
2. United States
3. India
4. Russia
5. North Korea
6. South Korea
7. Turkey
8. Israel
9. Pakistan
10. Iran



"The Ten Armies You Don't Want to Fight"
strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:%5Cinetpub%5Cstrategypageroot%5Cdls%5Cdocs1999%5Csize.htm&search=top%20ten)

Taking into account quantity and quality, the ten most deadly armies on the planet belong to China, the United States, India, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Iran. America isn't on top because, while our ground forces are formidable, superior equipment and training go only so far to make up for the numerical advantage the Chinese have.


We saw that fifty years ago in Korea. The Chinese used manpower to make up for less technology and fought us to a standstill. It can happen again.


For more details on how the top ten were selected, wander over to the Top Ten section of strategypage.com.


America's defense budget comprises about half of what all the top ten military powers spend each year. For all that money the United States gets several unique benefits.


First, the U.S. Navy is indisputably the master of the world's oceans. Anyone confronting the American fleet faces almost certain defeat. The most they can expect is to inflict some damage. And even that would be difficult.


The second advantage is that America is the only nation that can send substantial military forces anywhere on the planet. It can do this quickly, which in itself is an advantage. Getting there first gives you more control over the situation. America also spends billions each year to maintain the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. Perhaps most important, buried in the U.S. defense budget are billions for the world's largest intelligence gathering organization. Make that organizations. We may not know everything, but we generally know more than anyone else.


The other armies are the most powerful in their neighborhoods. This is what makes them so dangerous, for any of these armies is powerful enough to invade any of its neighbors. Most countries don't have that much military power. Sometimes, as with the two Koreas and India and Pakistan, two nations in the area have powerful armies. This has always, through all of recorded history, created a tense situation. In most cases, these heavily armed confrontations have led to war.


In the case of the two Koreas, superpower politics and the threat of nuclear weapons has kept the peace for nearly fifty years. India and Pakistan are an even more nerve-wracking situation, made worse when both developed and tested nuclear weapons in 1998. These two neighbors fought wars in 1965 and 1971, both of which Pakistan lost, big time. In early 1999, a small, but nasty, war was fought four miles up in the mountains bordering the Indian and Pakistani portions of Kashmir. Pakistan denied that it was involved, blaming Kashmiri rebels.


Since nuclear weapons are seen as a nation's ultimate guarantee of national survival, everyone was worried that India would escalate the "Kargil War" (named for the Kashmiri district it was fought in) by using its larger tank force to invade Pakistan by the lowland route. At that point, Pakistan's only option would have been surrender, or use nukes.


Since both nations had a few dozen nukes between them, the result would have been a few million dead, a lot of radioactivity in the atmosphere, and Pakistan still would have lost. All of this mainly because both nations could. Nations with smaller armies can rant and rattle sabers, but are incapable of much more. In the case of the Kargil war, Pakistan backed down. This cost the Pakistani leader his job and landed him in prison. He was replaced by the head of the armed forces. The guerrilla war continues in Kashmir, as do artillery duels across the border.


The rest of the top ten armies also present some problems. Iran is still considered a threat to its Arab neighbors, and skirmishing continues on the Iraqi border. Iran has massed forces on its Afghan border, but is mainly concerned with heavily armed Afghan drug smugglers coming across.


Turkey and Greece have long standing grievances that lead to muttering and fiery speeches, but the Greeks are greatly outclassed. Meanwhile, Turkey has several thousand Kurdish rebels that require constant attention. Turkey's Arab neighbors have land and water claims on Turkey, but, again, the more powerful Turks keep these beefs from blowing up.


Israel and Switzerland (the latter not in the top ten) are special cases. They are "rapid mobilization" armies. Within a few days they can put half a million previously trained civilians into uniform, ready to fight. Israel has demonstrated several times that these troops are capable.


Russia's mighty "Red Army" is still collapsing because of the Soviet Union's disintegration. But the Russians are starting to rebuild, a process that will probably take a decade or more. Russia's neighbors nervously watch this process.


Following the top ten are Germany, Taiwan, Vietnam, France, Egypt, Iraq, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, Britain and Brazil.


Germany is still going through its post cold war downsizing, and creating a force more suited to peacekeeping. France, Italy, Japan, Switzerland and Britain are also reorganizing for the New World order. Iraq is still preparing for war, as is Taiwan. Egypt and Brazil have large forces of dubious value. But in Brazil's case, her neighbors are much weaker. Egypt has to watch out for Israel, although since they made peace with the Israelis, it is Libya and Sudan who have had to worry about the more numerous Egyptian troops next door.


Size does matter, and that is why the ten largest armies are the ones most often in the news.

[SOG]

i guess for the 20th century if you consider history, tech and size:

1. Germany - able to take on multiple powerfull nations in two major wars. also considering there advancement in technology in both wars id say for thier time they were doing as good as the US is now. now while roles are reversed size and power wise with the US later on they still hold a good technological standpoint and a well trained army as ever.

2. US - i knock the US for its very weak army in ww1 and its weak beginging army in ww2. once the US got rolling though it has never stopped through good and bad. also i think that the dual with the soviets has pushed us past the german tech tree maybe not in average mainstay weapons but in high tech and keeping that push.


3. UK - has always had a good army partly due to its pre 20th century history. though well trained they are not overpowering aka at the very top in other categories thus 3rd.

4. Russia - although they only fought a fraction of the german army as the german army was just about everywhere during ww2 they showed how strongly a comeback there people could make and not relent until finished. even then engaging in a 35-40 year cold war and keeping pace with such high numbers was impressive. they are knocked back a bit for thier current status, surrounded by angry states, corrupt mil. although i think they do have enough power to bring to bear a pretty good force ieven today.


5. Israel - for being so small they really do have it together because they either force themsleves too or are forced to. while not overly large and not overly resource rich they still command quite a arsenal and push well trained soldiers with tech to a solid limit.

6. Australia - decent in size, i place them barely above china because i think they maintain and equip enough tech weapons to stay above the soldier vs soldier ratio china presents.

7. China - mass numbers has never been truer. not overly well trained, but well disciplined, though numbers can get a chi-com and a belly full of rice so far. i see china as a high impact country at 1st and if it could not bring a quick initial victory with its numbers it would simply dissapear and its tech arsenal is subject to "fire last" at about anything it encounters in the above list. numbers are great but a stratofortress with cluster is better. also if you factor in the casualty rate ala demoralising and how much it would drain resources in such large numbers.

8. Canada - will decent tech wise and training wise the size of the army while okay, is more capable to compliment another than fuly strike on its own. while this is good economically i believe in a full scale war numbers would present them with a serious problem.

9. Japan - by now i had just kinda dwindled but i think japan deserves props for above average training, very good discipline, putting up such a very strong and heavy fight, half and half on the tech tree, aka when they made a ship they made a ship but thier ground tech was total ****. if you consider its armys size and extreme loyalty at the time i thick if you translate that into current day they could hash many small countries. they remain at the bttom though for current army, which is mostly ours.

10. france - while i think on par with canada i dont think they have the push that canada could bring. though very good in ww1 i think they have depended on thier past to carry their future a bit too long.

[UoUo]

1. China
2. United States
3. India
4. Russia
5. North Korea
6. South Korea
7. Turkey
8. Israel
9. Pakistan
10. Iran



"The Ten Armies You Don't Want to Fight"
strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:%5Cinetpub%5Cstrategypageroot%5Cdls%5Cdocs1999%5Csize.htm&search=top%20ten)

Taking into account quantity and quality, the ten most deadly armies on the planet belong to China, the United States, India, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Iran. America isn't on top because, while our ground forces are formidable, superior equipment and training go only so far to make up for the numerical advantage the Chinese have.


We saw that fifty years ago in Korea. The Chinese used manpower to make up for less technology and fought us to a standstill. It can happen again.


For more details on how the top ten were selected, wander over to the Top Ten section of strategypage.com.


America's defense budget comprises about half of what all the top ten military powers spend each year. For all that money the United States gets several unique benefits.


First, the U.S. Navy is indisputably the master of the world's oceans. Anyone confronting the American fleet faces almost certain defeat. The most they can expect is to inflict some damage. And even that would be difficult.


The second advantage is that America is the only nation that can send substantial military forces anywhere on the planet. It can do this quickly, which in itself is an advantage. Getting there first gives you more control over the situation. America also spends billions each year to maintain the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. Perhaps most important, buried in the U.S. defense budget are billions for the world's largest intelligence gathering organization. Make that organizations. We may not know everything, but we generally know more than anyone else.


The other armies are the most powerful in their neighborhoods. This is what makes them so dangerous, for any of these armies is powerful enough to invade any of its neighbors. Most countries don't have that much military power. Sometimes, as with the two Koreas and India and Pakistan, two nations in the area have powerful armies. This has always, through all of recorded history, created a tense situation. In most cases, these heavily armed confrontations have led to war.


In the case of the two Koreas, superpower politics and the threat of nuclear weapons has kept the peace for nearly fifty years. India and Pakistan are an even more nerve-wracking situation, made worse when both developed and tested nuclear weapons in 1998. These two neighbors fought wars in 1965 and 1971, both of which Pakistan lost, big time. In early 1999, a small, but nasty, war was fought four miles up in the mountains bordering the Indian and Pakistani portions of Kashmir. Pakistan denied that it was involved, blaming Kashmiri rebels.


Since nuclear weapons are seen as a nation's ultimate guarantee of national survival, everyone was worried that India would escalate the "Kargil War" (named for the Kashmiri district it was fought in) by using its larger tank force to invade Pakistan by the lowland route. At that point, Pakistan's only option would have been surrender, or use nukes.


Since both nations had a few dozen nukes between them, the result would have been a few million dead, a lot of radioactivity in the atmosphere, and Pakistan still would have lost. All of this mainly because both nations could. Nations with smaller armies can rant and rattle sabers, but are incapable of much more. In the case of the Kargil war, Pakistan backed down. This cost the Pakistani leader his job and landed him in prison. He was replaced by the head of the armed forces. The guerrilla war continues in Kashmir, as do artillery duels across the border.


The rest of the top ten armies also present some problems. Iran is still considered a threat to its Arab neighbors, and skirmishing continues on the Iraqi border. Iran has massed forces on its Afghan border, but is mainly concerned with heavily armed Afghan drug smugglers coming across.


Turkey and Greece have long standing grievances that lead to muttering and fiery speeches, but the Greeks are greatly outclassed. Meanwhile, Turkey has several thousand Kurdish rebels that require constant attention. Turkey's Arab neighbors have land and water claims on Turkey, but, again, the more powerful Turks keep these beefs from blowing up.


Israel and Switzerland (the latter not in the top ten) are special cases. They are "rapid mobilization" armies. Within a few days they can put half a million previously trained civilians into uniform, ready to fight. Israel has demonstrated several times that these troops are capable.


Russia's mighty "Red Army" is still collapsing because of the Soviet Union's disintegration. But the Russians are starting to rebuild, a process that will probably take a decade or more. Russia's neighbors nervously watch this process.


Following the top ten are Germany, Taiwan, Vietnam, France, Egypt, Iraq, Switzerland, Italy, Japan, Britain and Brazil.


Germany is still going through its post cold war downsizing, and creating a force more suited to peacekeeping. France, Italy, Japan, Switzerland and Britain are also reorganizing for the New World order. Iraq is still preparing for war, as is Taiwan. Egypt and Brazil have large forces of dubious value. But in Brazil's case, her neighbors are much weaker. Egypt has to watch out for Israel, although since they made peace with the Israelis, it is Libya and Sudan who have had to worry about the more numerous Egyptian troops next door.


Size does matter, and that is why the ten largest armies are the ones most often in the news.

soory to telll..but this list is lame...it's simlpy no true.

usa have the most strong army in the world...with out a dout...
you canot rate turkey before israel...israel sells and give turkey most of there tech'

[Tiger]

soory to telll..but this list is lame...it's simlpy no true.

usa have the most strong army in the world...with out a dout...
you canot rate turkey before israel...israel sells and give turkey most of there tech'

I agree with you...this list is ridiculous... :roll: They just take the 10 largest armies. And it s not the size who make an army strong...It s training, discipline, technology...

Pakistan in the top 10 rofl

[SOG]

the problem i think with china is budanski, 1st when we fought them, it was still very linear warfare. today would be very different. we would own thier skies. you have seen what happens when you do this in iraq. 2nd, china could not mount a invasion because they would not be able to move troops over a ocean without getting sunk, and if they tried to fly the us navy down the us would simply knock out thier air with superior air. the battle would commence into a ungodly number of troops getting bombed day and night. part of the ability to make war is to bring those numbers to bear. china cannot deliver, litterally. while a big country that would be a nightmare to occupy it wouldnt be needed. a non stop campaign with almost no retaliation would be suffice.

then again my list is based off of 20th century history, tech, training, so mine would naturally vary.

[Ichhabe]

UoUo; Never ask a question that you don't want an answer to.

It was you that opened up this Pandora's box. If you do not like what's inside....

And it was nice to see that some had Norway on the list over the top 10. Made me glad to see that a Brit have liken our small contribution :D

( I would not dare to make such a list. )

[Vance]

It's ok UoUo, I will teach you. :D

For my list:

1. USA
2. UK
3. Poland
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. France
7. Germany
8. NK
9. Russia
10. China

i whould be happy. :)

and were is israel ? and poland before Russia ? ha ?
I will take quality over quantity.

[Haiw]

these lists are bull****; it's like listing the nations 10 best footballl teams; every1 will make a different list based on their 'favorites'. oh and about china; don't underestimate them...that country's got a BILLION people...any idea how big their army can be?!

[UoUo]

UoUo; Never ask a question that you don't want an answer to.

It was you that opened up this Pandora's box. If you do not like what's inside....

And it was nice to see that some had Norway on the list over the top 10. Made me glad to see that a Brit have liken over small contribution :D

( I would not dare to make such a list. )

no..it's ok...i respect evreyone opinian....

[He219]

with all the respect for the polish army...israel army is much stronger then the polish army.

technology.. fighters... money...israel is a westren country....i think poland is quite advance but to as israel....

Perhaps not for too much longer. The Cold War is officially over. With the US subsidizing Israel and the IDF since who knows when, we might see the current Billions in Annual US Military Aid start flowing towards Poland. Poland has a proud military history, discipline and training comparable to some of the best. It was soley lacking the Patronage of a Superpower to finance it's expenditures and training. The US now sees Poland as a vital ally while former 'Allies' have taken their bourgeois ways for granted. Besides, in a truly Secular Society we would not need Israel to 'buffer' us from the Islamic world...

[UoUo]

with all the respect for the polish army...israel army is much stronger then the polish army.

technology.. fighters... money...israel is a westren country....i think poland is quite advance but to as israel....

Perhaps not for too much longer. The Cold War is officially over. With the US subsidizing Israel and the IDF since who knows when, we might see the current Billions in Annual US Military Aid start flowing towards Poland. Poland has a proud military history, discipline and training comparable to some of the best. It was soley lacking the Patronage of a Superpower to finance it's expenditures and training. The US now sees Poland as a vital ally while former 'Allies' have taken their bourgeois ways for granted. Besides, in a truly Secular Society we would not need Israel to 'buffer' us from the Islamic world...

israel have very good army...strong and very great history... USa never drop the support on israel...the interst of usa is to keep israel strong in area that evreyone hate usa..exept israel...israel have good tech' we sell to half of the world missile....hm...if you didn't know...just few weeks ago israel sold anti tank misllie to poland...israel IAI is one of the best in the world.

[seventy6er]

It's ok UoUo, I will teach you. :D

For my list:

1. USA
2. UK
3. Poland
4. Canada
5. Australia
6. France
7. Germany
8. NK
9. Russia
10. China

LMAO. sorry, nothing against the polish comrades. but this is too funny. just because poland supports the usa in iraq, do they have a better army like for example switzerland?? nope, i don't think so. i'm not sure if i see the polish even in the top 20... sorry.

my list (although i think this thread is ridiculous):
1. no doubt: the US of A
2. UK (very small, but the brits realoized the signs of the time very soon and have a nice little mobile army)
3. France
4. Germany (still the 2nd mightiest heavy-metall-force worldwide incl. 2.500 Leo2 in config. A4 - A6 and as many upgraded Leo1's; well many of the Leo1 have been phased out or been given away as military aid to nato-partners turkey and greece)... if our government would spend a lil more money for our troops - that'd be nice (we're last place within NATO when it comes to military spendings in comparison with economical power; germany is number 1 by far economically in europe, number 3 worldwide)
4. concerning urban warfare and war against terrorists: israel (although i don't see them as a major player in a conflict against a REAL opponent)

don't forget the well-trained armies of our friends in holland, belgium, sweden, italy.

when it comes to sheer manpower, turkey is NATO'S #2, nut they're equipment i rather old...

only my 2 cents...

[Gringo]

Where is France? And i vote for Sweden too...

Look at a map my friend and u should find France somewhere in Europe.

[Haiw]

don't forget the well-trained armies of our friends in holland, belgium, sweden, italy.
yup :D we dutchies might be small, but the quality is way higher :) (training is often way thougher here) and we got great equipment as well...

[EvanL]

Canadians being as tough as we are, and our soldiers even tougher, will always be up for a fight especially if our allys need us. :hug:

[FallenAngel]

Best army eh?

#1- Roman Legions.
#2- Barbarian hordes.
#3- Mongolians under the Khans.

:lol:

[Adri]

7. Canada
8. Russia - BIG army, but very corrupt
9. Norway
10. Spain

:hug:

but this is like the topp 10 football teams......you cant say whos best and whos not.....it all comes down to moral & knolege (knolege of the land and enemy) then afther moral and knolege; thecnology/mass

so I would putt my money on the "home" team... however if any of those countrys go to war against eatch others, ww3 (with nuclear weapons) is probably a fact....and then I wouldent survive, this is a stupied topic....

who gives a flying F*ck, we would probably not survive any way...

*/sorry about my "not so good" english/*

[dez000]

1. Germany (imo perfect balance of technology and training)
2. USA
3. UK
4. France
5. Belgium/Holland/Luxemburg (Belgian army has got very well trained troops. Good infantry equipment... Except when it comes to the somewhat more expensive weaponry, like tanks, choppers,... we are kinda stuck in the coldwar era... But with the modernization plan things look bright in the future;)) (Holland has a very well trained and equiped army) (And luxemburg is practicly integrated in the Belgian army)
6. Canada
7. Russia
8. Poland
9. Sweden
10. Italy

[UoUo]

people oh...... i will give mine again

1 Usa
2 UK
3 China
4 Rusiia
5 Germmany
6 Isreal/France
7 Nk/Sk
8 India
9 Swess
10 hm...don't know...

[Vance]

LMAO. sorry, nothing against the polish comrades. but this is too funny. just because poland supports the usa in iraq, do they have a better army like for example switzerland??
Do you see ANYWHERE in my post that even remotely relates to the ignorant babble that just spewed out of your mouth? No. So do us all a favor and think before you speak.

[Henk]

Don't you people forget something, I allways thought that the soldiers
motivation to fight made an army strong.
Not technology
Not History
Not size
But the motivation to fight.
___________________________
the mind is the best weapon.

[UoUo]

Don't you people forget something, I allways thought that the soldiers
motivation to fight made an army strong.
Not technology
Not History
Not size
But the motivation to fight.
___________________________
the mind is the best weapon.

Is a important factor....

[Gringo]

Like Americas motivation to fight everyone.

[UoUo]

Like Americas motivation to fight everyone.

rofl


I just love the United state of america.

:hug:

[FallenAngel]

Don't you people forget something, I allways thought that the soldiers
motivation to fight made an army strong.
Not technology
Not History
Not size
But the motivation to fight.
___________________________
the mind is the best weapon.

True. But remember Cortez v. the Aztecs. Thousands of Aztecs fought to the death, but Cortez and 300 men slaughtered them all. Technology and size DO matter.

[Henk]

Fallen Angel you are right a gap of thousand years of technology does make a differance, but now a days a war has to be quick and a gap of only 20 years of technology, endurance and Motivation wil win the day.
_____________________________
The mind is the best weapon.

[UoUo]

Siza did't matter.

[GLax]

kinda an off topic question, but doesnt the US have some of the lowest payed troops compared with our European friends?

[budanski]

kinda an off topic question, but doesnt the US have some of the lowest payed troops compared with our European friends?


Report: Tough duty earns low base pay for US military personnel
By Sara B. Miller


Dodging enemy fire and hunting for chemical weapons may be among the most intimidating jobs around. But according to one survey on military salaries, combat troops make little more for waging war than those who help theatergoers to their seats or help schoolchildren cross the street.

A survey by outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that military personnel are among the lowest-paid employees in the United States.


"These people are putting themselves on the line," says John Challenger, the firm's CEO. "It is very high risk, and compensation does not seem to square up."


A private with one year in the service is paid a base salary of $15,480 a year. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, theater ushers made $14,144 a year in 2002. Crossing guards made $15,080.


But base salaries only tell part of the story, says Christopher Michel, the CEO and president of Military Advantage, a San Francisco-based company that helps current and former military members gain access to their benefits.


Housing and food alone can expand salaries by a third. Troops get other bonuses, like combat pay - an additional $150 a month while they are at war. A private making $20,000 may see $31,000 at the end of the year. Education benefits add real value.


There is still room for improvement though, Mr. Michel says, given the stakes. "You can't pay them enough, and they should be paid well, so the military remains competitive."


Many agree. Military personnel expect to see an average pay raise of 4.1 percent in 2004. Their salaries then increase with rank and years of service.


Still, Mr. Challenger calls the disparity between the military and the private sphere unfair, especially at the highest levels.


Top chief executives average $11 million in annual compensation, according to a 2001 Standard & Poor's survey. Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of United States Central Command overseeing the military action in Iraq, makes $153,948. "That's way out of whack," Challenger says.

European militaries pay their units more to make it worthwhile for them to stay. Thus taking away more for other essentials. ie: weapons and equipment.

[SOG]

when i read andy mcnabbs immediate action (non fiction, UK mil) it was clear for a while he couldnt afford anything in the military. he had to save like crazy although when he and his girfriend decided to pool money and live together things seem to have gotten noticably better. and until later on in his carreer it seemed money was always slightly tight.

[Shake n Bake]

kinda an off topic question, but doesnt the US have some of the lowest payed troops compared with our European friends?


I think the Canadians have the dubious distinction of being the lowest paid..

More than half of thir fighting men are on welfare.

[EvanL]

And where did u get these statistics from? Our troops have a low pay compared to our economy. Being a G7 country we should have a higher pay for our soldiers but we doont. Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Turkey, Greece and numerous others, have lower pay than Canadas.

[Schuster]

I did some math(pounds to CDN dollars). And our soldiers get better pay than British Soldiers on average. i cant say much for other countries.

[seventy6er]

Do you see ANYWHERE in my post that even remotely relates to the ignorant babble that just spewed out of your mouth? No. So do us all a favor and think before you speak.

what i said is not ignorant, but the truth. the polish got some 120 or so phased out leo2a4's from us, that is the backbone of their MBT-fleet. the list gos on and on. their equipment is very very old. i didn't say anything against their soldiers - i don't doubt that they are skilled and fight with the heart. it's just ridiculous from you, just cause they sent some 20 GROM-dudes into iraq to set them at place 3 :roll:

i got quite some polish friends and colleagues, so please don't call me ignorant or else --->

http://www.seventy6er.de/bilder/div/assclown_award.jpg

thx...

[Hussar]

I think, that motivation is the most important thing in army. Look on the soviet army in 1941. They had huge and well equipped army. They had more (and better) tanks and airplanes than Germans. But they didn`t want to fight. They were escaping. In 1943-44 situation was different. They wanted to fight. Also look on polish army in 1939 - we were fighting really well (we were attacked by Germans and Soviets, but we were fighting more than 1 month, and also we had huge underground army). And look on France 1940. They were more powerfull than Germany, but they lost because they didn`t want to fight.

[andrew45c]

In terms of might yes the U.S Army is the strongest but in terms of the quality of individual soliders i would have to say the UK yes i know youl say im biast and arrogant but i would bet that if you sent a small army of brits they could win a battle against any other country with and army of equal or slightly greater size.


Also I dont think anyone can deny that The UK has the finest military traditions in the world with each regiment having hundreds of years of history.

[S'13]

Motivation without a doubt. In the 1948 War of Independence the probability that israel would win was small.
On the day the Arabs invaded israel the IDF had 30,573 men while the Arab forces had 30,000 men+10,000 locals. The IDF had one tank (with no cannon) while the Arab forces had 40. The IDF had had 120 armored vehicles and armored personnel carriers while the Arab forces had 300. The IDF had 5 field guns while the Arab forces had 140. The IDF had 24 anti aircraft guns while the Arab forces had 220. the IDF had no fighter planes while the Arab forces had 60. The IDF had no bombers while the Arab forces had 14. The IDF had 28 transport planes while the Arab forces had 57. The IDF had 3 armed ships while the Arab forces had 12. Of course everyone knows the end of that war.

[Haiw]

I think, that motivation is the most important thing in army. Look on the soviet army in 1941. They had huge and well equipped army. They had more (and better) tanks and airplanes than Germans. But they didn`t want to fight. They were escaping. In 1943-44 situation was different. They wanted to fight. Also look on polish army in 1939 - we were fighting really well (we were attacked by Germans and Soviets, but we were fighting more than 1 month, and also we had huge underground army). And look on France 1940. They were more powerfull than Germany, but they lost because they didn`t want to fight.

reread soviet history; the soviet army in 1941 was ill-equiped (their tanks sucked & were organised in a bad way, command and control was almost gone and most airplanes got nailed on the ground)...they wanted to fight, it just wasnt really possible...in 1943-44 their willingness to fight hadnt changed... about france; they wanted to fight, they just couldnt win...

motivation wins guerilla wars...not regular army wars..

[S'13]

I just gave you an example of a regular war which was won with motivation.

[paulbo]

:P :P :P I don't mind we are even the 10th or 20th of the Top10 or 20...
U can even say we r the worst army in this world :P Whatever....hehe...

We r the worst, we r the worst...haha....u should trust me...and come on

[Shadow]

Do you see ANYWHERE in my post that even remotely relates to the ignorant babble that just spewed out of your mouth? No. So do us all a favor and think before you speak.

what i said is not ignorant, but the truth. the polish got some 120 or so phased out leo2a4's from us, that is the backbone of their MBT-fleet. the list gos on and on. their equipment is very very old. i didn't say anything against their soldiers - i don't doubt that they are skilled and fight with the heart. it's just ridiculous from you, just cause they sent some 20 GROM-dudes into iraq to set them at place 3 :roll:

i got quite some polish friends and colleagues, so please don't call me ignorant or else --->

http://www.seventy6er.de/bilder/div/assclown_award.jpg

thx...

Yep, and we are giving them our old Mig's for the symbloic price of 1 Eur ? because we'll replace them with sweat EUROFIGHTER's.

[ArmoredDov_D9]

What makes a good army?

First of all, quality of the soldiers (motivation, skills, discipline, morall).
Secondly, trainings.
Thirdly, technology.
Fourthly, size and resources.

Top 3 armies in the world - quality of soldiers:
1. Israel.
2. UK.
3. USA.

Top 3 armies in the world - technology:
1. USA.
2. Israel.
3. Russia.

Top 5 armies (including size factors):
1. USA.
2. UK.
3. Russia.
4+5. China and Israel (together).


Note that it easier to assest an army who is involved in armed conflict than armies who don't.

[Jack Mehoff]

What makes a good army?

First of all, quality of the soldiers (motivation, skills, discipline, morall).
Secondly, trainings.
Thirdly, technology.
Fourthly, size and resources.

Top 3 armies in the world - quality of soldiers:
1. Israel.
2. UK.
3. USA.



Note that it easier to assest an army who is involved in armed conflict than armies who don't.

Correct me on this but how do you get quality soldiers if you draft them oppose to recruit them on a volunteer basis? IDF DRAFT their citizens to join the military; USA and UK military RECRUIT them. rofl

[IDFM203]

What makes a good army?

First of all, quality of the soldiers (motivation, skills, discipline, morall).
Secondly, trainings.
Thirdly, technology.
Fourthly, size and resources.

Top 3 armies in the world - quality of soldiers:
1. Israel.
2. UK.
3. USA.



Note that it easier to assest an army who is involved in armed conflict than armies who don't.

Correct me on this but how do you get quality soldiers if you draft them oppose to recruit them on a volunteer basis? IDF DRAFT their citizens to join the military; USA and UK military RECRUIT them. rofl
No you are wrong. Both armies in a way recruit their soldiers. The reason why Israel’s combat soldiers are of better quality is that they recruit from everyone in the general population and only the best of the whole population make it into the combat ranks. I don’t know if you know this, but combat units in the idf only make up 20 percent of the whole army. With that percentage not everyone makes it in. In fact most combat units are actually made up of volunteers that apply to get into them. So besides the army evaluating out of the general population and then picking the best it also has large amounts of highly motivated volunteers in which they get to evaluate and pick from.

In the U.S. they are not recruited from the whole population in fact lets be real here. Most of the army is made up of people that want to go to college or need the extra money. I don’t want to put it in this negative light but in actuality the U.S. army is made up of the lower classes of society, in terms of education or economic background.

In essence the U.S. army only gets to pick from a small-unmotivated percentage of the population.

So in actuality Israel’s combat units have more quality soldiers then does the U.S. :D

[Jack Mehoff]

What makes a good army?

First of all, quality of the soldiers (motivation, skills, discipline, morall).
Secondly, trainings.
Thirdly, technology.
Fourthly, size and resources.

Top 3 armies in the world - quality of soldiers:
1. Israel.
2. UK.
3. USA.



Note that it easier to assest an army who is involved in armed conflict than armies who don't.

Correct me on this but how do you get quality soldiers if you draft them oppose to recruit them on a volunteer basis? IDF DRAFT their citizens to join the military; USA and UK military RECRUIT them. rofl
No you are wrong. Both armies in a way recruit their soldiers. The reason why Israel’s combat soldiers are of better quality is that they recruit from everyone in the general population and only the best of the whole population make it into the combat ranks. I don’t know if you know this, but combat units in the idf only make up 20 percent of the whole army. With that percentage not everyone makes it in. In fact most combat units are actually made up of volunteers that apply to get into them. So besides the army evaluating out of the general population and then pricking the best it also has large amounts of highly motivated volunteers in which they get to evaluate and pick from.

In the U.S. they are not recruited from the whole population in fact lets be real here. Most of the army is made up of people that want to go to college or need the extra money. I don’t want to put it in this negative light but in actuality the U.S. army is made up of the lower classes of society, in terms of education or economic background.

In essence the U.S. army only gets to pick from a small-unmotivated percentage of the population.

So in actuality Israel’s combat units have more quality soldiers then does the U.S. :D

Nope, you are wrong. People in USA who want to earn money college usually join rear echelon jobs in the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force or National Guard.

I served 4 years as an infantryman with the 10th Mountain Division and 1 year as a National Guard member. I never encounter any active duty grunts who actually join the infantry so they could earn money for college. They CAN DO EXACT same thing with financial aid and/or with the National Guard IF they want money for college. Of course, I speak this from REAL experience.

Israel with a population of six million people. US's population is 300 million. So, I can bet my money that we have a LARGER pool to RECRUIT qualified people for military oppose to DRAFT people

I'll find you a good article released recently about US military.

[IDFM203]

What makes a good army?

First of all, quality of the soldiers (motivation, skills, discipline, morall).
Secondly, trainings.
Thirdly, technology.
Fourthly, size and resources.

Top 3 armies in the world - quality of soldiers:
1. Israel.
2. UK.
3. USA.



Note that it easier to assest an army who is involved in armed conflict than armies who don't.

Correct me on this but how do you get quality soldiers if you draft them oppose to recruit them on a volunteer basis? IDF DRAFT their citizens to join the military; USA and UK military RECRUIT them. rofl
No you are wrong. Both armies in a way recruit their soldiers. The reason why Israel’s combat soldiers are of better quality is that they recruit from everyone in the general population and only the best of the whole population make it into the combat ranks. I don’t know if you know this, but combat units in the idf only make up 20 percent of the whole army. With that percentage not everyone makes it in. In fact most combat units are actually made up of volunteers that apply to get into them. So besides the army evaluating out of the general population and then pricking the best it also has large amounts of highly motivated volunteers in which they get to evaluate and pick from.

In the U.S. they are not recruited from the whole population in fact lets be real here. Most of the army is made up of people that want to go to college or need the extra money. I don’t want to put it in this negative light but in actuality the U.S. army is made up of the lower classes of society, in terms of education or economic background.

In essence the U.S. army only gets to pick from a small-unmotivated percentage of the population.

So in actuality Israel’s combat units have more quality soldiers then does the U.S. :D

Nope, you are wrong. People in USA who want to earn money college usually join rear echelon jobs in the Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force or National Guard.

I served 4 years as an infantryman with the 10th Mountain Division and 1 year as a National Guard member. I never encounter any active duty grunts who actually join the infantry so they could earn money for college. They CAN DO EXACT same thing with financial aid and/or with the National Guard IF they want money for college. Of course, I speak this from REAL experience.

Israel with a population of six million people. US's population is 300 million. So, I can bet my money that we have a LARGER pool to RECRUIT qualified people for military oppose to DRAFT people

I'll find you a good article released recently about US military.
No you are wrong here!!!. Yes you have a larger pool to choose from but the pool itself is not nearly as good in terms of quality and motivation as Israel’s pool is. Meaning that on a percentage bases in terms of its population, Israel’s gets to choose much better quality people for its combat ranks then the U.S. has from its ranks.

In fact I am not so sure that the pool sizes are that much different. Most U.S. citizens do not go to the army. They go on to jobs or onto university.

The fact is that the larger percentage of the U.S. armed forces are there for non nationalistic reasons. While yes there are some that go purely for nationalist reasons, they are not the norm but rather the exception.

In fact this might come as a surprise to you but the U.S. army isn’t a whole lot bigger then Israel’s when it is at full strength. So both armies aren’t so far apart in terms of manpower size. (I believe the U.S. army is at about a million point something while Israel is close to a million)

With that in mind Israel does get the better quality soldiers for its combat ranks as I have explained to you before.

btw as for experience I have lots of friends that are in combat units in the U.S. (like the 82nd,101 airborne and even one in ranger school) and they all went for college reasons.

[James]

Lower class, eh?

I dropped out of college and spent 4 years as an infantryman in the Marine Corps. My recruiter was disappointed when I told him I wanted infantry or nothing.

Unmotivated, lower class indeed.

[Jack Mehoff]

Oh well, we can start a war and see who will win. Either that or USA stop giving Israel money and weapons and let's see how powerful you are.

[IDFM203]

Lower class, eh?

I dropped out of college and spent 4 years as an infantryman in the Marine Corps. My recruiter was disappointed when I told him I wanted infantry or nothing.

Unmotivated, lower class indeed.

I didn’t mean it as a personal attack or as any offence towards the U.S. and its awesome military. I am just stating the facts as it pertains to this conversation. I don’t mean lower class like in terms of human beings, no I meant in terms of education and economic background. In fact I said it that way. The simple fact is that most U.S. citizens do not go to the army. And most of the army personal is made up of volunteers that went for non-nationalist reasons. That’s the reality of the U.S. and its army.

[Jack Mehoff]

Lower class, eh?

I dropped out of college and spent 4 years as an infantryman in the Marine Corps. My recruiter was disappointed when I told him I wanted infantry or nothing.

Unmotivated, lower class indeed.

I didn’t mean it as a personal attack or as any offence towards the U.S. and its awesome military. I am just stating the facts as it pertains to this conversation. I don’t mean lower class like in terms of human beings, no I meant in terms of education and economic background. In fact I said it that way. The simple fact is that most U.S. citizens do not go to the army. And most of the army personal is made up of volunteers that went for non-nationalist reasons. That’s the reality of the U.S. and its army.

Well, maybe because NOBODY put a gun on their head and force them to join the military like Israel. I think I know the difference between DRAFT and VOLUNTEER.

[IDFM203]

Oh well, we can start a war and see who will win. Either that or USA stop giving Israel money and weapons and let's see how powerful you are. Listen I don’t know how we got on to this. We were discussing quality of soldiers and not technology or aid money.

But if that’s your discussion then fine. Ill just say that Israel right now is [bthe forth-largest arms producer in the world[/b]. it has invented or improved technology in every military field in fact you can find Israeli technology permeated throughout the U.S. armed forces as well.

Israel spends 15 billion a year on defence and only gets two billion a year from the U.S. so while this money is certainly appreciated and we do say thank you, but if it were cut off, Israel would still survive pretty strong.

As for a war against one another. well firstly Israel has nuclear weapons to ensure that will never happen.

As for individual combat units. Well in fact Israel has proven it self pretty well. I am not sure if you are aware of this but Israel and the U.S. have mock combat exercises about once every two years and from what I know Israel has been victories in a lot of them. In fact I know people who actually participated in them (one of them was my commander) and he said that his unit defeated an equivalent unit of marines. This was about 4 years ago.

But again we aren’t talking about overall military strength or might but about the quality of its combat soldiers. And like I said before, Israel has the best quality of combat soldiers amongst its combat ranks.

[Jack Mehoff]

Combat soldiers against Palestine armed with heavy artillery like AK-47 and light weapons like rocks and sticks. I'd say you gain a lot of experience against a formidable enemies like the Palestine rofl



Israel spends 15 billion a year on defence and only gets two billion a year from the U.S. so while this money is certainly appreciated and we do say thank you, but if it were cut off, Israel would still survive pretty strong.


Oh boy, I wish my goverment could read this.

[IDFM203]

Lower class, eh?

I dropped out of college and spent 4 years as an infantryman in the Marine Corps. My recruiter was disappointed when I told him I wanted infantry or nothing.

Unmotivated, lower class indeed.

I didn’t mean it as a personal attack or as any offence towards the U.S. and its awesome military. I am just stating the facts as it pertains to this conversation. I don’t mean lower class like in terms of human beings, no I meant in terms of education and economic background. In fact I said it that way. The simple fact is that most U.S. citizens do not go to the army. And most of the army personal is made up of volunteers that went for non-nationalist reasons. That’s the reality of the U.S. and its army.

Well, maybe because NOBODY put a gun on their head and force them to join the military like Israel. I think I know the difference between DRAFT and VOLUNTEER.
Ok that’s true but whatever the reason, Israel’s combat soldiers are made up of the best ones from society while in the U.S. they are not.

The combat units do not draft their soldier in the sense that you think but rather they have to pick them out from the mass pool that makes up a yearly draft. This ensures that unlike what I feel you have thought (that everyone makes it), the combat units aren’t made up of everyone but are rather made up of a select few (20 percent) which are indeed the best quality. This ensures that Israel’s combat units are at a performing level of that or better then those of other non draft armies.

[IDFM203]

Combat soldiers against Palestine armed with heavy artillery like AK-47 and light weapons like rocks and sticks. I'd say you gain a lot of experience against a formidable enemies like the Palestine rofl



Israel spends 15 billion a year on defence and only gets two billion a year from the U.S. so while this money is certainly appreciated and we do say thank you, but if it were cut off, Israel would still survive pretty strong.


Oh boy, I wish my goverment could read this.First of all Israel has fought 6 major wars against odds that the U.S. has never faced


As for this conflict well the truth is that Israel is doing a whole hell of a lot better then the U.s. is doing it its occupation with Iraq. I don’t know if you know this but most of the casualties of the past three years were not made up of soldiers and those few soldiers that did die were ones that were on city busses or in cafes but they were not in combat areas or patrols. No the Israeli army has performed very well.

The U.S right now is in the same type of situation and it is clear that they got a lot to learn and a lot of room to improve. They too are getting killed by ak’s roadside bombs and by people throwing stones. I mean the Iraqi terrorists or one hell of a formidable enemy rofl rofl

[IDFM203]

Oh boy, I wish my goverment could read this.Oh I am actually all for stopping this aid. I mean Israel gets this aid while at the same time it is forced to not fight like the U.S. does in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I mean the U.S. has a clear double standard.

Oh and besides the U.S. gives Israel’s enemies combined much more then it gives to Israel.

[EvanL]

Jack you have to understand the Israeli mindset. They are a very proud nation with a very capable military, which by the way is nowhere near 1million, its more like 250,000. But they are also a very big headed nation, being the only superpower for thousands of miles around them. They will argue on and on about their soldiers with you, but it makes no difference. The United States remains the best fighting force in the world. Israel is only a defence force and would nto be able to pull off a real war. They are a small country with a big military and they train to protect their county not fight against other ones. In terms of training, Israel is up there in the top 10. In terms of equiptment Israel fairs pretty well, but alot of their equiptment for the indivivual soldier lacks quality, and for an army like theirs, the individual soldier is what matters the most.

[Jack Mehoff]

Oh boy, I wish my goverment could read this.Oh I am actually all for stopping this aid. I mean Israel gets this aid while at the same time it is forced to not fight like the U.S. does in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I mean the U.S. has a clear double standard.

Oh and besides the U.S. gives Israel’s enemies combined much more then it gives to Israel.

Yeah, that's why we give Saudi billion of dollars so they won't attack Israel. That's why fanatic muslims hate our guts because of our blind support for Israel. That really doesn't mean I like the Palestine either, especially the Hamas because of their terrorist tactic.

[IDFM203]

Jack you have to understand the Israeli mindset. They are a very proud nation with a very capable military, which by the way is nowhere near 1million, its more like 250,000. But they are also a very big headed nation, being the only superpower for thousands of miles around them. They will argue on and on about their soldiers with you, but it makes no difference. The United States remains the best fighting force in the world. Israel is only a defence force and would nto be able to pull off a real war. They are a small country with a big military and they train to protect their county not fight against other ones. In terms of training, Israel is up there in the top 10. In terms of equiptment Israel fairs pretty well, but alot of their equiptment for the indivivual soldier lacks quality, and for an army like theirs, the individual soldier is what matters the most.
No I said Israels military at full strength is in fact close to a million. Full strength means with reserves. I actually looked it up and I see I was a bit off. It is about a half a million definitely much more then 250 thousand..

Yes the United States is the best fighting force in the world there is no argument here. I mean they are the most powerful army that the world has ever seen. That is as a whole.

No we are arguing quality of soldiers. In that I believe that Israel has the upper hand.

As for training, again I believe its clear that Israel has the upper hand. In fact it is known that the U.S. has been studying Israeli combat and training experiences for years.

As for equipment, you are right and wrong at the same time.

It really depends on the unit or its role. Most top combat units get very good U.S. and Israeli equipment. As you go down on combat units and in importance the qulity of equipment goes down as well..

Yes Israel is a very proud and we have every reason to be. Israel has clearly proved itself. It has fought and won five major wars against odds that the U.S. or anyone else has never faced. All those wars were against the very best Russian equipment. The same type of equipment that the U.S. lost to in Vietnam. So yes Israel and its military do have a lot to be proud of and deservingly so.

[IDFM203]

Oh boy, I wish my goverment could read this.Oh I am actually all for stopping this aid. I mean Israel gets this aid while at the same time it is forced to not fight like the U.S. does in Iraq or in Afghanistan. I mean the U.S. has a clear double standard.

Oh and besides the U.S. gives Israel’s enemies combined much more then it gives to Israel.

Yeah, that's why we give Saudi billion of dollars so they won't attack Israel. That's why fanatic muslims hate our guts because of our blind support for Israel. That really doesn't mean I like the Palestine either, especially the Hamas because of their terrorist tactic.

No you give Saudi Arabia money only for its oil. I mean you went to war to protect that oil(back in 91) The reason why the Arabs don’t attack and haven’t attacked Israel in over 25 years is because they know that they will get their ass kicked whether by its military or by Israel’s vast nuclear arsenal.

I mean to suggest that the U.S. gives that money to Saudi Arabia so it doesn’t attack Israel is clearly one of the funniest things I have read on this board. rofl
rofl

[Dennis G]

A good book about the Military Effectiveness of Arab Armys. You think thats why the israeli's win with the odds they face becouse the arabs get theirs ass's kick bt everyone else? I wonder how the IDF would fare against a European power? just thought I would post.

Thanks Dennis


http://www.militarybookclub.com/doc/mil/GlobalData/GlobalImages/BookJacketsLarge/544650_lg.jpg


They were armed to the teeth and outnumbered their enemy, yet they lost the battle. More often than not, this summarizes Arab military performance since WW II. Why? This far-reaching history explains.

Author Ken Pollack, a former Persian Gulf military analyst for the CIA and Director for the National Security Council’s Persian Gulf Affairs, pointedly explores Arab military effectiveness, including but not limited to unit cohesion in combat, command, information management and training. He covers a wide range of conflicts of varying natures to dispell unsubstantiated "excuses" that work both against Arabs and in their favor.

A keen understanding of Arab friends and foes has never been more important to the West. Arabs at War acts as an indispensable primer on modern Middle East military history and a focused study of Arab military culture and performance. 36 maps. 784 pages.

This timely, all-encompassing history scrutinizes a wide range of conflicts fought by Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Libya, such as:

Arabs vs. Arabs
The Syrian Invasion of Jordan, 1970
The Iran-Iraq War, 1980-88

Arabs vs. Israel
The War of Israeli Independence, 1947-48
The Six Day War, June 1967

Arabs vs. the West
The Sinai-Suez War, 1956
The Gulf War, 1990-91

Arabs vs. Africa
The War for Chad, 1978-87
Libya’s Intervention in Uganda, 1979





Reviewer: Mark Robson (see more about me) from New York, NY USA
The Middle East has been, regrettably, one of the most active "laboratories" of war-fighting since WWII. The lessons learned from the numerous conflicts there have had tremendous influence on the development of the concepts of maneuver warfare which are so central to current Western military doctrine. The success of that developmental process has been manifestly evident in the Coalition (essentially U.S.)-Iraqi conflicts of 1991 and 2003. Pollack's book, which is well-summarized by the other reviewers, is a fairly technical survey of the course of each of the individual Middle-East conflicts, with an eye towards elucidating the causes for the defeats of the Arab militaries in each of those wars. His analytic style will be familiar to those who have read his other, more politically charged, book, The Threatening Storm. He proposes hypotheses for Arab military ineffectiveness in his introduction, and then proceeds to evaluate the degree to which performance of each country in each conflict supports or refutes each of those hypotheses. It is a very logical, detailed method of argument which has an aura of inevitability in its conclusions. However, some in the general readership may find it a bit dry. There are few anecdotes of small unit action to liven up the narrative, which reads more like a War College document than a popular history.

The conclusions have also been summarized by the other reviewers. As I see it, Pollack proposes that Arab military ineffectiveness stems mainly from an inability of smaller units, either on land or in the air, to engage in the free-flowing maneuver and combined-arms co-ordination required for tactical success on the modern battlefield. He proposes that problems reliably using and maintaining sophisticated modern weapons systems are also significant, but the root cause is the inflexibility of the small unit. Pollack attributes this mainly to failings of the junior officer corps, but I would like to have seen a discussion of the role of the non-commissioned officers in Arab armies, since the ability of Western NCOs is a major factor in the strength of Western militaries.

Pollack does not propose an explanation for the limitations he identified. It would be fascinating to read an evaluation of his conclusions in light of the Arab Development Report, to assess the degree to which the military deficiencies are indirect manifestations of aspects of Arab culture. My own hypothesis (although I am certainly no expert) is the observed limitations arise from an absence of a technological, machine-oriented, society that emphasizes individual empowerment and action, an inherent conservatism that values the collective (umma) at the expense of personal initiative, and an system of personal worth and honor that limits the ability to recognize and convey negative information. In other words, many of the factors that are at the heart of criticisms of Western (and especially U.S.) society by the Arab world are those that are associated with Western success, and Arab failure, in modern war.

Of course, as Pollack points out, the nature of war is not static. And there may come a time in the future when Arab militaries are more effective, politically if not tactically or operationally. For instance, the development of asymmetric warfare takes advantage of Arab personal courage and willingness to sacrifice for the collective, and suicide bomber vests are not sophisticated weapons systems. But, without a significant restructuring of Arab society, it is hard to see how the limitations detailed so mercilessly in this book will be overcome in a way that will allow the Arabs to prevail on a conventional battlefield.






Reviewer: John Mashey (see more about me) from Portola Valley, CA United States
After reading "The Threatening Storm", I bought this for further background and to continue to assess the quality of Pollack's research. This seems a detailed and objective analysis.

Pollack analyzes each of the Arab armies, and finds, as noted in other reviews, that Arab soldiers have often been incredibly brave, but with tactical leadership uneven at best, and often truly awful.

I take away from this that at least part of the problem is not just that lower-ranking officers are not good, but that the common problem has been *architectural*. That is, the structures and motivations of these governments have almost never allowed for independence and initiative at the lower levels. In some cases, it is clear that various rulers never wanted the military to be too independent, and this resulted in a rigid centralized-control approach.

Hence, perhaps it is possible this is a military problem, i.e., train better tactical leadership, but the consistency of the problem makes me think that it is more of a government/society issue, where the existing structures simply don't encourage the long-term existence of flexible troops.

In any case, fine analysis with comprehensive military history of the era.



Reviewer: John Henninger (see more about me) from Littleton, CO United States
The main thesis of Pollack's book is that the Arab armies lose wars because of the low quality of the junior officer corps. The first army that Pollack evaluates is the Egyptian army from 1948-1991. Pollack states the main reason for the severe defeat suffered by the Egyptians in 1967 was due to the poor quality of lower ranking officers. These Egyptian lieutenants, majors, and colonels failed to react to Israeli manuevers or look for routes of escape. However Pollack praises the Egyptian high command's decision to move forces closer to the Israeli border because if they waited behind defensive works, the Egyptian army would have been outmaneuvered by the Israelis. When planning for the 1973 war the Egyptian high command planned every detail of the lower officers moves for the upcoming offensive. The end result was that the Egyptian army was suuccesful in the opening phases of the offensive but faced defeat in the unplanned later phases of the conflict.Pollack thinks that the Egyptian high command made the right move in staying in the Northern Sinai and not retreating because the Egyptian army lacked the maneuver skills to implement the later option. The second that Pollack details is the Iraqi army that faced problems similiar to the Egyptian army. In the opening phases of the Iran-Iraq the Iraqi army was outmaneuvered by Iranin forces because of the medicore qaulity of the Iraqi forces. The Iraqi high command compensated for this weakness by carefully planning every operation in minute detail. This soon led to the later Iraqi victories against the Iranians although the Iraqi junior officers still suffered from poor intiative. Because of the above mentioned weaknesses the Iraqi army was swiftly defeated by the United States during the Gulf War, but Pollack states that the Iraqi high command saved the Iraqi army from complete destruction by sacrificing some units of the elite Republican Guard against the American armored forces so that a great percentage of the Iraqi army could escape. The the third army that Pollack details is the Jordainin army from 1948-1991. The Jordanian army was able to defeat the Israelis in the 1948 war because it was officered by British officers thereby escaping the previously mentioned weaknesses of the Iraqi and Egyptian armies. But once the British officers were replaced by Arabs in 1956, this led to the poor showing of Jordanian forces in 1967. The forth army mentioned is the Libyans that had similiar problems with their junior officers and this caused the Libyan defeat in Chad during the late eighties. The Saudi Arabian army which had exactly the same problems as the above mentioned armies was more ineffective since the Saudis never bothered to learn the technical skills to run a mechanized army. The final army that Pollack describes in the book is the Syrian army and how the poor quality of Syrian lower officers led to defeat in it's wars against Israel. The inefffectiveness of the Syrian officer corps allowed the Israelis were able to outflank the Syrians by moving into the Northern Golan Heights during the 1967 war. In planning their moves against the Israelis in the 1973 war, the Syrians copied from Soviet tactics by massing their forces on both flanks of the Israeli army in the Golan Heights but the Syrians restrained the moves of their lower officers to react personally to any Israeli moves. The end result was the near destruction of the Syrian army that was only saved by last minute reinforcements from Iraq and Jordan. During the 1982 war in Lebanon the Syria commandos performed well but the vast majority of the Syrian regular forces performed poorly. I would reccomend this book to anyone interested into the reason why the Arabs lose in war.

[IDFM203]

I am simply not going to read all this. the fact is that Israel defeated armies with the same Russian equipment that the U.S. faced in Vietnam. To add even further. The U.S. faced the same thing in Somalia. The Russians also faced their own equipment as well as U.S. equipment and lost to Arabs as well.

I am not saying that the Arabs are the best and most powerful enemy that one can face, but to simply say that 12 to one odds were overcome because of their ineffectiveness is simply bull****. No, it was Israel’s superiority in terms of training and quality of manpower that was the deciding factor in all these victories.

As for a European power. No one can prove anything but I do in fact believe that Israel can defeat on a one to one basis any European power that it can face. I mean it has the technology, the training, the quality manpower. Yes it certainly can defeat any one individually.

[EvanL]

ONCE AGAIN! IDF- Israeli DEFENCE force. You could not defeat any European power due to the fact that you guys do not have the abillity to transport troops that far. Your Navy lacks the proper types of ships to pull off a proper naval engagement against any qualified foe, and your airforce doesnt have proper refuelling capabillities. Stop being so damn ignorant. israel has teh right to its existence, it has the right to defend itself, but Israel is like the school-yard bully picking on the weaker kids, even if they have more friends than him.
You guys have faired well in all of your conflicts, but you have been fighting 3rd world forces. If it wasnt for the States, not just the government, but the many Jewish/Israeli owned businesses in the states that send money to Israel on a monthly basis. You guys wouldnt have the money or technology to exist as a country. Israel relys on the West for its existence, and it has ever since its conception. Dont turn a blind eye to it because its true.

[IDFM203]

ONCE AGAIN! IDF- Israeli DEFENCE force. You could not defeat any European power due to the fact that you guys do not have the abillity to transport troops that far. Your Navy lacks the proper types of ships to pull off a proper naval engagement against any qualified foe, and your airforce doesnt have proper refuelling capabillities. Stop being so damn ignorant. israel has teh right to its existence, it has the right to defend itself, but Israel is like the school-yard bully picking on the weaker kids, even if they have more friends than him.
You guys have faired well in all of your conflicts, but you have been fighting 3rd world forces. If it wasnt for the States, not just the government, but the many Jewish/Israeli owned businesses in the states that send money to Israel on a monthly basis. You guys wouldnt have the money or technology to exist as a country. Israel relys on the West for its existence, and it has ever since its conception. Dont turn a blind eye to it because its true. hey we aren’t talking about one country going over to another. I mean who says Israel is going to go over there I mean if we are talking hypothetical here, it could be where a European power comes over to Israel. You see this is all in the hypothetical. No what we are talking about is all things being equal, if Israel and a European power were to face off on a battlefield then I believe Israel would win.

There is never going to be a war anyways because Israel and the Europeans have nuclear weapons to prevent any one from ever invading. So again we are talking about two armies facing each other on a battlefield. The Israeli air force is superior to any European air force. The Israeli tank corps is one of the biggest and best in the world . The Israeli infantry is better trained. I believe as a whole, Israel is the better trained, has the same or better technology and has more experience (in recent modern times) then any European nation.



Stop being so damn ignorant. israel has teh right to its existence, it has the right to defend itself, but Israel is like the school-yard bully picking on the weaker kids, even if they have more friends than him. . hey calm down cnuck.

First of all this is a military discussion board and in case you haven’t noticed, everyone here is arrogant for their own nations military. I mean we even have poles here believing the crazy things that they believe. Secondly I don’t think I asked for your approval to exist, this has nothing to do with this conversation. I mean I don’t think you expect my approval for your country to exist. and I sure as hell dont need your apporval to exist.
And lastly, Israel is not no “school yard bully” . No Israel wants to be left alone in peace and it is that we have no choice that we must wield some power. But that is a whole other discussion.



You guys have faired well in all of your conflicts, but you have been fighting 3rd world forces. . no we have been fighting first world equipments in the armies that were at numbers of 12 to one. These equipments were like the same that the U.S. faced in Vietnam or the soviets faced in Afghanistan.




If it wasnt for the States, not just the government, but the many Jewish/Israeli owned businesses in the states that send money to Israel on a monthly basis. You guys wouldnt have the money or technology to exist as a country. . first of all I don’t need a cnuck telling me about owing ones existence to the united states.

Secondly Israel was dominant in the Middle East before the U.S. spent a dime on it. The U.S. only become allies with Israel after 1967. Israel right now is the forth-largest arms producer in the world. In fact most of the Israeli army best technology is Israeli made. Its tank corp uses Israeli tanks. The infantry now is switching over to all Israeli made rifles. It makes remote controlled planes(in fact Israel invented them). It makes its own night vision equipment. it is a world leader in missle and missle defense technology And in the air force, most U.S. equipments is made up of large parts of Israeli technology. For further reading on Israel technological superiority go to http://www.israeli-weapons.com/

No without that aid, Israel would defiantly exist. It has an 87 billion a year economy and spends out of that 15 billion on defence. It only gets three billion a year from the U.S.

3 billion is hardly an argument for full dependence.



Israel relys on the West for its existence, and it has ever since its conception. Dont turn a blind eye to it because its true. . that is bull****!! It fought its first war without any outside help. It becomes a super power with out any American help. And from the 70’s till now it can defiantly survive without any help Israel has nuclear weapons to ensure that no Arab country attack it and it has a first class arms industry (the forth largest arms PRODUCER in the world) that ensures that if the world were to cut of all relations with Israel they would still be able to survive strong on its own.

[ArmoredDov_D9]

Combat soldiers against Palestine armed with heavy artillery like AK-47 and light weapons like rocks and sticks. I'd say you gain a lot of experience against a formidable enemies like the Palestine rofl




No offence, but those "AK-47 and rocks and sticks" (they also have RPGs and bombs so don't underestimate them) guys are really kick US troops a** in Iraq. So it's not that easy to handle terrorist who blend with the population without commiting mass-murder. I estimte that about 100 US soldiers were killed by Arab militants (go figure how many of these militants are native Iraqis) and that is only in half year. Israel lost about 200 soldiers in a 3 year peroid.

As for sizes: the US army is bigger than the IDF but the differences are becomig very small when the IDF is fully mobilized (i.e. all reserved are being called). But that big advaמtage of the US over Israel is its mass-production capability and the large population that on emergency draft can form a huge army (serveral millions at least). Today, there is no military power in the world that can match the US army power.

But given a fight between equal-sized units, most of the chances are that the Israelis will win. There are serveral reason for that but I won't get on the details.

And as for fighting against Europe - we may not have the capabilities to conqquer Europe (why should we?) but the IDF can defend Israel from an European attack.

Overall, Israel has no intentions to battle the USA. We are allies after all and contribute each other - even in the military field. The min reaso why Israeli troops are more qualitt soldiers is that we're living in a though neighbourhood and we cannot afford gain alot of casualties or losses.

And one final remark, most of the world believes that Israel has nuclear capabilities, some claims that it even has some warhead ready to launch. However, that was never been proved and Israel never confirmed those rumors.

[bobdakilla]

UK BEST TRAINED BULLLLLLLLSHHHHIIIIIIITTTTTT

america is best allaround except amout of troops china has the bigest army

[Skaman]

I think analyzing BEST militaries is too hard to discern, yet training quality can be done.

1.Uk
2.Canada
3.Isreal
4.Poland
5.Germany
6.Swiss
7.Italy
8.Japanese
9.USA
10.South Africa

Ive worked with six of these countries, so I do know what I am I talking about. This is my oppinion however, and not necessairly "correct" hearsay.

[Seiyuuki]

I think analyzing BEST militaries is too hard to discern, yet training quality can be done.

1.Uk
2.Canada
3.Isreal
4.Poland
5.Germany
6.Swiss
7.Italy
8.Japanese
9.USA
10.South Africa

Ive worked with six of these countries, so I do know what I am I talking about. This is my oppinion however, and not necessairly "correct" hearsay.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

I don't have the background to debate on the matter, but I have to ask concerning the Swiss.

The Swiss been neutral ever since...oh hell, a whole long long long way back. In that case, I assume their military are merely train and equips to defend their homeland and their precious neutrality and just that. When discerning "best" military, shouldn't it be taken into account one military capabilities to "project" its force and I doubt the Swiss are equips to do any "projecting."

[Jack Mehoff]

I think analyzing BEST militaries is too hard to discern, yet training quality can be done.

1.Uk
2.Canada
3.Isreal
4.Poland
5.Germany
6.Swiss
7.Italy
8.Japanese
9.USA
10.South Africa

Ive worked with six of these countries, so I do know what I am I talking about. This is my oppinion however, and not necessairly "correct" hearsay.
Let me guess, you are Canadian ;)

[USMarine3521]

usa #9.....incredible, by the way are we talking about Army? or are the Marines included in this?

my list
1.US Marines
2.UK Royal Marines
3.US Army
4.Canada
5.Germany

(my opinion)

[EvanL]

i dont see why you guys are so eager to say you can defend israel with nukes. The only countries that pose a threat to you are surrounding yuo. If you hjad tto use those nukes, you would probably do as much damage to yourselves as the enemy.

[Ratamacue]

USMarineDEP, the Royal Marines definitely have better training than the US Marines, but only because they serve different purposes. US Marines are heavy shock infantry whereas the Royal Marines are more of a commando/light infantry force like the Rangers.

But I don't know why we're comparing militaries. Is this going to be a fad that pops up on this forum again?

[Seiyuuki]

I didn’t mean it as a personal attack or as any offence towards the U.S. and its awesome military. I am just stating the facts as it pertains to this conversation. I don’t mean lower class like in terms of human beings, no I meant in terms of education and economic background. In fact I said it that way. The simple fact is that most U.S. citizens do not go to the army. And most of the army personal is made up of volunteers that went for non-nationalist reasons. That’s the reality of the U.S. and its army.

When you actually can, how 'bout you bring the entire IDF Army over to the National Training Center and you can see for yourself how "lower class in terms of education and economic background" the OPFOR at Fort Irwin really are.

I miss the memo, when did it take a 4.00 GPA, a Master Degree and being rich to qualify to join the military and be trained to become a good soldier?

This in itself is an argument FOR the US military. Seriously, think about this: which military is better? One that can pick the most stupid in society, "low in educational and economic condition" and transform him/her into a good soldier...or...One that have to pick the best from society in order to transform him/her into a good soldier. I say "good" soldier because they get the job done and do more than they are asked to. I don't say "best" because, frankly, if every soldier was the "best," there would probably be 100,000,000 Generals in the military.

Consider the Ranger, SEAL, 101st Air Assault, even Delta, etc...do you really think every men and women in these "best" units are "high in educational and economics status?" A good number of men and women in these unit are there in the first place because they are better at what they do than a lot of other soldiers, do you really think these men and women are "non-citizen seeking college money due to their low educational and economic status?"


The U.S right now is in the same type of situation and it is clear that they got a lot to learn and a lot of room to improve. They too are getting killed by ak’s roadside bombs and by people throwing stones. I mean the Iraqi terrorists or one hell of a formidable enemy rofl rofl

Really think about that and compare that to how calm and peaceful Israel and that whole region is right now.

[USMarine3521]

USMarineDEP, the Royal Marines definitely have better training than the US Marines, but only because they serve different purposes. US Marines are heavy shock infantry whereas the Royal Marines are more of a commando/light infantry force like the Rangers.

But I don't know why we're comparing militaries. Is this going to be a fad that pops up on this forum again?

Well i agree with you. However, I meant more as a whole fighting force, like for example a MEU, i dont know if the Royal Marines have something like that.

Anyways yeah its always going to be biased when it comes to comparing militaries...

So US Marines are the best (biased)

[IDFM203]

i dont see why you guys are so eager to say you can defend israel with nukes. The only countries that pose a threat to you are surrounding yuo. If you hjad tto use those nukes, you would probably do as much damage to yourselves as the enemy.Its called MAD (mutual assured destruction) it is the same strategy and thinking that the U.S. had with Russia. Israel only has nukes as a last resort and as a strong deterrent. We don’t rely on them. Israel can defeat its enemies with out them. The nuclear option serves Israel in two ways. One is that it actually is a strong enough deterrent to Israel’s enemies where they don’t even bother to attack it. Secondly, if attacked and it finds it self-losing, the nuclear capability can turn around the battle and save Israel from total destruction. Of course the last option is one that everyone wants to avoid.

[mocking_loudly]

This is such a big nob competition. :D

Every one is putting their own country first.

You Israelis have serious tabs on yourselves, if America decided not to fund your nice little country things would be a tad different.

Most European nations have long histories of warfare and discounting them is most amusing.

Arrogance equals slow death.

Any way we all know the UK has the best troops; they just don't have any money for decent kit.
rofl

[IDFM203]

When you actually can, how 'bout you bring the entire IDF Army over to the National Training Center and you can see for yourself how "lower class in terms of education and economic background" the OPFOR at Fort Irwin really are. . well like I said before. certain units in the idf and the u.s. marines have been having mock exercises for years and from what I know, the idf has been victories in most of them. In fact it is common knowledge that marines have been in Israel to learn Israeli MOUT training before they went to iraq..

Now get off this lower class statement. I didn’t mean that they are lower class human beings. No I am just stating facts on a socieconomic scale. When I talk about class here I am referring to ones motivation. Like I said before, Israel gets more motivated soldiers then the U.S. does where its armed force are made up of those that join for non nationalistic reasons.


I miss the memo, when did it take a 4.00 GPA, a Master Degree and being rich to qualify to join the military and be trained to become a good soldier? .well in Israel we missed the memo of where soldiers and armies are cannon fodder. No in Israel, intelligence is actually valued even in the infantry ranks. You don’t need a master’s degree or anything like that, but a certain level of intelligence is expected of you and your training will give you more. Israel doesn’t have mere grunts or the like. There is no situation where Israel is going to lose fifty thousand soldiers. Israel had faced those enormous odds but yet kept casualties to a minimum.



This in itself is an argument FOR the US military. Seriously, think about this: which military is better? One that can pick the most stupid in society, "low in educational and economic condition" and transform him/her into a good soldier...or...One that have to pick the best from society in order to transform him/her into a good soldier. I say "good" soldier because they get the job done and do more than they are asked to. I don't say "best" because, frankly, if every soldier was the "best," there would probably be 100,000,000 Generals in the military. . well again we are talking about the quality in terms of motivation. Israel gets to pick the best out of a pool that is there only for nationalist reasons. While the U.S. picks out of a pool that is there for non-nationalist reasons. It’s the motivation that I believe makes the quality better in Israel



The U.S right now is in the same type of situation and it is clear that they got a lot to learn and a lot of room to improve. They too are getting killed by ak’s roadside bombs and by people throwing stones. I mean the Iraqi terrorists or one hell of a formidable enemy rofl rofl

Really think about that and compare that to how calm and peaceful Israel and that whole region is right now. no we are talking about military performance. Israel military has suffered very few casualties in the past three years. The fact that suicide bombers go off in Israel has more to do with politics that actual military performance. For the most of the past three years Israel only responded to attacks, it did not actively engage the suicide bombers or its masters before they went out. For only about a year they have been doing it and there has been a great success. In fact most of the suicide attacks have occurred when Israel pulled out of the areas. When Israel went in, suicide attacks were very few. But it is important to note that it is impossible to stop every attack. But overall the army is in fact doing a good job at least when it is allowed to.

[IDFM203]

This is such a big nob competition. :D

Every one is putting their own country first.

You Israelis have serious tabs on yourselves, if America decided not to fund your nice little country things would be a tad different.
l

don’t forget that we are talking strictly about aid here. Israel gets three billion a year and out of that only two billion can be spent on defence. Now Israel spends 15 billion a year on defence so in fact it spends most of its own money on its own defence.

Now of course I dont mean that Israel can’t buy any weapons form anyone else. I mean every country buys from everyone else. Heck the British buy ****loads form the U.S. and vice versa. In fact the U.S. also buys from Israel etc etc…

So no even if Israel stopped getting that three billion it still wouldn’t effect too much Israel’s military superiority.

[IDFM203]

This is such a big nob competition. :D

Most European nations have long histories of warfare and discounting them is most amusing. firstly I recognise their long histories I just said that Israel has more modern and recent combat experience than any European country. (Except for perhaps England)
Secondly I didn’t discount them and I do in fact recognize and respect Europeans powers its just that I feel Israel can defeat any European country on an individual basis. Like I said before, “There is never going to be a war anyways because Israel and the Europeans have nuclear weapons to prevent any one from ever invading. So again we are talking about two armies facing each other on a battlefield. The Israeli air force is superior to any European air force. The Israeli tank corps is one of the biggest and best in the world . The Israeli infantry is better trained. I believe as a whole, Israel is the better trained, has the same or better technology and has more experience (in recent modern times) then any European nation”

[mocking_loudly]

Ok, so America only gives a little to the Israeli cause - in your words.

What is Israel’s economy based on?.

That’s a serious question, I'm curious as to how you guys can get all this lovely high tech kit.

And I still think you have extreme tabs on your superiority. ;)

[IDFM203]

Ok, so America only gives a little to the Israeli cause - in your words.

What is Israel’s economy based on?.

That’s a serious question, I'm curious as to how you guys can get all this lovely high tech kit.

And I still think you have extreme tabs on your superiority. ;) Don’t put words in my mouth.....
I never said that we get a little or any term like that, I just stated the facts and numbers as to what Israel gets and that if Israel were to stop getting this money it could survive pretty strong.


Israelis economy is based on a lot of factors. In terms of technology it has its own home-grown industry that competes on the world market just like the U.S. does with its high tech. no one is giving Israel anything in that field. No the world buys and invests in Israeli companies just like Israelis or other nationalities buy and invest in American companies.

I mean what is your whole point here?!? Do you not understand how the global economy works?!?

Israel is a 87 billion a year economy. It has a world-class technological industry. It also boast a world class pharmaceutical industry. It has its inter industries that trade amongst themselves. It has most industries, like farming, agriculture, business (investments, banking etc..) like any other western country. It also is a world leader in the diamond industry in terms of the diamond exchange. These are just some of the few industries that make Israel a first world nation.




As for tabs on superiority, well all you have is your feeling and without any other backing I guess my arguments will stand.

[TacoDelRio]

What makes an Army strong?

Easy: Strong, mature, disciplined, well-trained soldiers.

That's it.

PFC Dacey
US Army

[ArmoredDov_D9]

We talking about military quality - not about economical power. As everyone knows, the USA economical power and mass-production capability are almost uncompitable and that's give a very strong backup to their military power.

For example: although Israel has the technology and the ability to build an Aircraft Carrier it doesn't have the budget to fund it maintain it.

[Russian Texan]

People repeat after me: Aircraft carrier, B2, trident, minuteman, tu160, SS18(satan), Topol-M, Typhoon class submarine, Seawolf, F15/16/18/22, Mig 29/31, Su27/32/35/37, 2mil standing military and all of these just to name a few.


I understand that everyone wants to have the BIGGEST ***** but people lets be realistic:

What is one suberbly trained German/Polish/Swedish and so on, commando going to do when 1000 chinese conscripts will be rushing at him?
What can UK do if couple of carrier groups will park right next to it? And please don't even mention Trafalg. subs 'cause they became obsolete the moment they were built.
What is Europe going to do in 5 min before SS 18 slams into it in order to ensure that nothing grows there for the next 10000 years.

US/Russia/China
The rest don't matter because no one comes even close to manpower and technology that these countries can field in an all out war.
No offense to our British allies who are trying to relive glorious days of the old British Empire by tagging along into every US started conflict.

[StarvingStudent47]

What is Israel’s economy based on?.

That’s a serious question, I'm curious as to how you guys can get all this lovely high tech kit.

According to the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/), Israel has $28 billion in exports per year. These consist of "machinery and equipment, software, cut diamonds, agricultural products, chemicals, textiles and apparel." 43% of this ($12 billion) is sold in the United States; the remainder is sold all over the world. Israel receives $2.1 billion in military aid per year from the USA. I have two pairs of shoes that were made in Israel (Naot footwear) and a set of bedsheets made in Israel (LL Bean). They're very well-made--definitely "Made in USA" quality not "Made in China" quality.

Egypt gets 62% as much military aid from the United States as Israel does--$1.3 billion, to be precise. (source (http://www.terrorismanswers.org/policy/foreignaid2.html)). Egyptian exports total $7 billion per year and consist of "crude oil and petroleum products, cotton, textiles, metal products, chemicals." 20% of this, or $1.4 billion, is sold in the United States. Not only do I not own anything made in Egypt, I don't think I've ever even seen anything in stores that was made in Egypt.

The question I ask isn't "why does Israel get aid," but "why does Egypt get nearly as much"? Despite having ten times the population of Israel, we only get 1/9 as many goods from them. More importantly, I don't recall any celebrations in Tel Aviv on 9/11/01. Wish I could say the same about Cairo.

[Royal]

No offense to our British allies who are trying to relive glorious days of the old British Empire by tagging along into every US started conflict.

Offence taken ****head.

Try looking elsewhere when you need SF (GWI & II) or decent mountain troops (Afganistan).

[USMarine3521]

No offense to our British allies who are trying to relive glorious days of the old British Empire by tagging along into every US started conflict.

Offence taken ****head.

Try looking elsewhere when you need SF (GWI & II) or decent mountain troops (Afganistan).

well the US has its own SOCOM and mountain troops...whats your point...but he is right UK cannot exactly win wars alone, except for countries like maybe canada (no offense but its true) or something.

EDIT: i take back what i said about canada (canada is too big) what i meant to say was france rofl

[Royal]

well the US has its own SOCOM

which was unable to put enough troops on the ground in either Gulf war, hence the involvement of Brit SF (and in GWII, Aussie and Polish SF).


and mountain troops...whats your point...

My point is the 10th Mountain Div weren't up to it, hence the US request for 3 Commando Bde to be deployed.


except for countries like maybe canada (no offense but its true) or something :roll:

[StarvingStudent47]

Royal,

Don't take the comments of RussianTexan and USMarineDEP to represent all Americans. The vast majority of Americans genuinely appreciate and are grateful for the international support we've had in recent wars.

[USMarine3521]

Royal,

Don't take the comments of RussianTexan and USMarineDEP to represent all Americans. The vast majority of Americans genuinely appreciate and are grateful for the international support we've had in recent wars.

whatttt!! i didnt say i dont care about UK support i am just supporting what russian texan said because i believe it is true, and i mis understood when royal said:

"Try looking elsewhere when you need SF (GWI & II) or decent mountain troops (Afganistan)."

because it sounded as if the US didnt have its own SF or mountain troops, i have a very high respect for the brits especially the Royal Marines/SAS/SBS.

[786mine]

Pakistan before Swiss.

Decipline and patriotism make armies legends.

[Ballistic]

well the US has its own SOCOM and mountain troops...whats your point...but he is right UK cannot exactly win wars alone

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, but umm, neither can the United States.

And as far as training and professionalism goes, the Australian Defence Force would have to rank in the top 5 in the world.

[Javehn]

Pakistan before Swiss.

Decipline and patriotism make armies legends.

Good job , 786 :roll: . Next time try to dig something even more older , to contribue your great one liner :roll: .

[mack pl]

What's make army strong?Hmmm, money, money,money and hard training ;) :)

[mocking_loudly_died]

Pakistan before Swiss.

Decipline and patriotism make armies legends.

Good job , 786 :roll: . Next time try to dig something even more older , to contribue your great one liner :roll: .

Christ, I agree - kill this thread please.

Sooooo old.

[mack pl]

Pakistan before Swiss.

Decipline and patriotism make armies legends.

Good job , 786 :roll: . Next time try to dig something even more older , to contribue your great one liner :roll: .

Christ, I agree - kill this thread please.

Sooooo old.Nah, this thread is so cool, dont kill it ;)

[Piotrek]

political will / need of owning good army and economycal strength - those two implicat most of below:

good doctrine
good commanders
motivation
experience
training
equipment
quantity

ps. please dont talk about ABC warfare.