World Military, what do you think is your military's strengths?

Oh no, this got ugly fast last time I saw it, mainly because some people claimed the US army should be classified as having the "conscripts" doctrine and others claimed the whole US army were storm troopers.

So yeah. No way am I going to mention any other country's military and get into a silly argument :|

The Australian army has a very proud military tradition and a keen sense of mateship and the spirit of ANZAC (an Australian myth of self-sacrifice and courage that we celebrate every year on ANZAC day). We have always been exceptional soldiers in harsh enviroments, adapting well to desert and jungle warfare despite our relative lack of equipment. The Australian army historically has excelled at fighting guerillas on their own terms, eg the Boers and the Viet Cong were both very respectful of the average "digger" (as the brits nicknamed us), and we were far better jungle fighters than the poor old Japanese in WWII.

By the way Diggums the ANZACs were at Paschendael too, it wasn't just you canucks :yes: In fact there's an awesome 1/35th scale diorama of ANZACs and Canadians going over the top at Paschendael here at my work at the war memorial. It's one of the things that made me interested in modelling as a kid.

We are a small nation though and some of our support vehicles are outdated US or European cast offs. Our army is tiny and we don't have many tanks. Quite a few of our soldiers are veterans though, probably due to the small size of our armed forces. Our SAS is on a par with that of the British, so anyone who knows about these things knows that's petty bloody good.

IG doctrines for the Aussies I would say are:
Light Infantry
Iron Discipline
Die Hards
Close order drill (mateship)
Veterans

One of the issues with the Australian armed forces, is the size and equipment each of the arms has access to..
The Air Force is still using 20yo ex-US equipment that is well on it's way past the effective useby date; as far as I'm aware, more is being spent on maintaining the old squadrons than it would cost to buy replacement squadrons. Not a good way to do things. Recently the government announced that they would be buying more old jetfighters from the US, F-15's I think it was going to be, to replace the oldest of the planes currently in service.

The Navy on the other hand is getting money all the time for new equipment, it's just being spent on relatively useless equipment (Collins Class Sub anyone?). To exacerbate the problems the navy has, is the fact that currently about 70% of the Navy's manpower is being spent on Coast Guard duties, for which they are ill equipped. There's no point in having a half dozen big guns (or even small guns) if you aren't allowed to fire them at the ship you have cornered doing illegal things.

While the Army (footsloggers) itself is well trained, they are still pretty poorly equipped. The announcement from the goverment recently said that Australia was buying a number of ex-US tanks (Bradley M2's) to replace the even older one's currently in use. These tanks are nearly WWII era vehicles that have been "upgraded". And for this, a few hundred million$ is being paid for not only second hand equipment, but obsolete equipment. Good thing the troops can take care of themselves isn't it.

In some ways buying old equipment makes sense, but when a Sea Hawk 'copter crashed last year just because it was 20 years old and there was nothing mainenance could have done to prevent it, it is time to consider buying brand new equipment.

I'll go for the UK, although I don't know everything i'll do the best I can.

Army

The British army, from what I can make out is a very well put together, well equipped, excellently trained fighting force. The traditions of officer training and guarding the queen are combined with upto date equipment and tactics to give us the edge in most combats. In Iraq, for example, I beleive the British military is seen in a better light than the Americans as we appear to respect the everyday citizens of Iraq more, hence why the British areas see a lot less violence.

Navy

Pride and joy of the British military. Steeped in tradition, but also very upto date. We provide planes for aircraft carriers for the Americans, (Harrier Jump Jets), and our Naval expertise are without peer on this planet, (in my opinion). This comes from having a well trained and proud Navy who know where they come from in history, and the standard that they have to follow.

Air Force

Probably the British Militaries weakest area. We buy helicopters from the Americans, (Apaches), and we are part of the Eurofighter program. This however does not deter from the fact that we still have one of the best trained and equiped air forces in the sky.

These are my opinions on the UK military. I would like to think that, on an even playing field, with the same number of troops, ships, planes etc, I would say that the British Military is the equal of anyone in the world right now.

Just my opinion :ninja:

the main problem with the Scottish regiments at the moment are these plans to merge them into one super regiment.

i am quite personally against this idea as one of the reasons the Scottish regiments are so effective is how the whole force has a very clan like system to it as it has been since god knows when.

personally I believe that the British army can't be beat for its training but we have to remember that every army is trained to use what it has available.

for example US troops tend to have a lot more resources and man power than a lot of other nations militaries (Great Britain being a good example). and as such their combat doctrine is based around that fact. the British armed forces tend to not have the advantages of the United States and so depends on its troops being trained to a point where they are worth 1.5-2 times that of another army

another good way to look at a militaries fighting style is to look at the equipment they use for example.

the main battle tank (or at least most famous) the Americans have at the current moment is the M1 Abrams main battle tank.





this monster tends to suit the American style of battle nicely with lots of tech designed for group combat (greater resources tends to allow that a fair bit) and they are a moderately all round tank.


on the other hand you have the British Challenger MK2 battle tank



this tank is geared towards quality over quantity which suits the smaller British armed forces very well. in comparison to the M1 abrams its slower but from reports from iraq none of these beasties have been destroyed compared to a couple of abrams which were lost in the conflict. taking that into account i am assuming that the challenger tends to have a much stronger armour to make up for its slower pace. but its the weapon system that makes this juggernaut lethal with a 120mm RIFLED! main gun. the accuracy on this gun is quite incredible with boasts by the crews to hit a moving football (soccer to any one who is thinking other wise) at 5 miles. quite a boast i have to admit but non the less from what ive seen of it im pretty sure it might be able to nicely. unlike the American tank there is only about 300-400 of the British challenger in service and most of these are in the Scots dragoon guard.




in general i personally feel that british troops are probebly the best trained in the world but of course im pretty bias

but when it comes to man power and resources the USA has that title as far as i know

Arklite said:

the main problem with the Scottish regiments at the moment are these plans to merge them into one super regiment.

i am quite personally against this idea as one of the reasons the Scottish regiments are so effective is how the whole force has a very clan like system to it as it has been since god knows when.

Click to expand...

My grandfather and great grandfather were both in the Gordon Highlanders, and later served in India with the Rajputana Rifles (my GGF was the CO).

Merging ain't that bad though. My dad was in the 12/16th Hunter River Lancers, which used to be the 12th and 16th Ausralian Light Horse regiments. They merged when we changed all of our light horse to armoured regiments (tanks are better than horses ).

The Australian light horse has a very proud tradition (the Beersheba charge, etc) so all that really happened was that 12th/16th has the battle honours of BOTH the 12th and 16th light horse on their regimental guidon. They still recognize and celebrate that they were once smaller regiments, but now they are a super regiment with the traditions and honours of both. Think of it like this: The nation we call England used to be made up of dukedoms like Northumberland, York, etc. England now incorporates these old petty nations and remembers them, they haven't really been lost. Times have just changed

EDIT: By the way, it seems we only have the Commonwealth members bragging about their military. Where are all the Viking members, are they all on holiday or something?

IamJasonK said:

I wanted to fly A-10s really bad. However, when I spoke with a recruiter he said my chances were poor because of my ailing vision and poor knee. I was glad he was honest cause I would have hated to sign up and not get my goal position.

Click to expand...

If you want to fly the 'Warthog' you may have to travel back in time. I believe that plane has been taken out of service in favor of the new 'Joint Strike' fighter. Don't ask me why because the A-10 has an awe inspiring combat record and is probably the only plane in existence that could have flown back to base with out wings! :w00t: ( note that's a slight exageration, but the warthog was one hell of a tough plane. ) It also played an extremely important anti-armor role that attack helicopters can't compare at, and that the JSF can't perform.

As far as the original topic of this thread I can't really see a point in comparing strengths and weakness in a broad term, but in smaller unit design you can find 'elite' units and pieces of equipment all over the globe that can trump each other.

There's a show on the discovery channel, I think it's called 'Weapons of War' or something and it does the most fascinating comparitive breakdown of the most advanced military hardware in the world from every country that boasts advanced hardware.

If you haven't seen the show I highly recommend it.

The British senior service, the Royal Navy is our main strength. We are an island, once we dynamite the channel tunnel your going to have to get wet to get at us.

Surface fleet wise, we have a number of modern Type 23 Frigates. Sea Wolf anti-missile missiles, Harpoon and various guns. Type 45 Destroyers provide air defence, but they're 70's era.

3 Light aircraft carriers with Harrier jump jets and helicopters used to serve as the bulwark. These are to be replaced with 2 new "super" carriers. Unfortunatly 2 is to few to deal with 1 in re-fit and 2 conflicts in the world. Plus thier due to be outfitted with the unspectacular F35.

Amphibious wise we have 3 major assault ships capable of taking the Royal Marine's pretty much anywhere.

Subamarine service consists of Swiftsure and Trafalgar class boast with "Astute" class due in future. These have the nasty Spearfish torpedo, Tommahawks and harpoon.

Helicopters include the EH.101 Merlin. Big and capable multi-role. The Sea King. Old and big. Plus the Lynx, one of the fastest helicopters in the world usualy used in a sub-hunting role. Minehunters are present in force.

All this hardware is very nice. But the enemy of today is Al'quaeda do you really need an aircraft carrier to take down a dodgy looking turban wearing man in a speedboat sprouting koranic gibberish?

No.

Librarian Augustine said:

not to insult any Aussies, but I have letters that my uncle wrote during WW1. Allegedly the Aussies were claimed to be poor fighters and poor moral. They killed some of their officers running away. However I am sure that it could have easily been just a bad squad or someting giving the rest a bad name.

Regardless Diggums Hammer covered our military

Click to expand...

Yeah every description of Aussies by Brits, Americans or what have you I've seen here at work basically says that Australians are excellent troops but will not take orders from anyone but other Australians. There are many many cases of insubordination of Australian troops against British officers. I've seen several records here where British and/or US officers have brought charges against Aussie troops from WWI right up until Vietnam for refusing to salute them or to follow orders.

On the other hand I have seen several statements (in translation) from experienced Viet Cong, Japanese and Boer soldiers saying that the Australians were the allied troops they were most afraid of fighting.

So yeah, whether or not "Iron discipline" is one of our doctrines depends I guess on who's leading us... :tongue:

Just on a different note, I've also seen documents from WWII where Aussie and American troops were in fights when on leave because the "Australian troops took exception to perceived American arrogance." Unfortunately these fights often ended in fatalities as the Australian troops were prone to fist fights (after all, we're allies. It's just a friendly bust up!) but the American troops would treat every fight as a fight to the death and pull out knives, guns, clubs etc.

This gave Americans a reputation among Aussie soldiers for dishonour, but to the GI's they were doing what Americans do when in a fight, ie they dont fight to prove a point they fight to win. Cultural differences eh? The respective officers had to take some pretty serious action to remedy the situation.

EDIT: Sorry for the long post but this is interesting to me. I've talked to a few people at work about your uncle's letters Ausgustine and they seem to be in agreement with me. Most likely your uncle is referring to an Australian unit under the command of a British officer, which at that stage in the war was not uncommon and was a source of huge disciplinary problems.

The British army is (still now, but not so much) based on aristocratic officers trained to lead and working class soldiers and NCOs. The Australian army has always been based solely on merit and if an Australian soldier thinks he has a better idea than his officer he expects the officer to listen to him and treat him as an equal. This is not so in the British army, or at least wasn't during WWI and earlier. The Brits are big on following orders, that is a large part of their concept of military honour. The Australians on the other hand value an officer who downplays his authority and expects his men to be creative and show initiative. Before Monash took over the command of the Oz forces towards the end of the war and placed Aussies in command of Aussies, many Australian units were plagued with low morale as they were led by English officers who expected to be obeyed solely because of their title.

The old US army saying that you "salute the stripes not the man" is not traditionally adhered to by Australians in war zones. We always salute the man and ignore the stripes if we feel he doesn't measure up. This means Australian troops commanded by Australian officers (who must prove themselves first like everyone else) are creative, brave and eager soldiers capable of innovative battle even when cut off from orders, which explains our ability to meet guerillas on their own terms.

Australian troops under the command of their allies are sullen, insubordinate and behave poorly, sadly sometimes even to the point of murdering their officers and leaving the battlefield if they feel their lives are being expended needlessly.

In our defence though the folks here at work say such behaviour was rife among all forces during WWI due to the general inability of the commanders to understand what the soldiers were going through. It just happened less amongst the British due to their tradition of discipline and their attitude of "he must know best, after all he's an officer."

After you take all of these things into account it is easy to see how an aristocratic englishman could have easily been "fragged" (to use a 'nam term) by his Aussie troops. Your uncle probably only saw an officer, and didn't realize that the Australian troops saw a pompous foreigner with no "real" authority (to them) stupidly ordering them to thier deaths.

War is a sad state of affairs indeed.

i just wrote a long post but then accidently deleted it

basically the British army has a long and illustrious history as being among the forefront of the worlds fighting forces, and is characterised by its superior training. Elite forces such as the SAS are among the best troops in the world, and personally i believe that regiments such as the Royal Marines and Para's are easily the match for any equivalent regiment in the world (for example the US Marines and Airborne Rangers) This is partly through necessity, the UK cannot afford the massive technological advantages enjoyed by the US- until the new SA802 was introduced the old model was famous for being unreliable-and partly through tradition- something extremely important to a british regiment.
The Royal Navy and RAF are similarly small but highly trained. All in all a credit to their nation


IG doctrines: Iron discipline and close order drill

Do we have any Dutch posters here, i read in the paper that there was a crisis in the dutch military (it could have been Denmark not holland i cant remember) when it was discovered that 14% of them were clinically obese

Well I'm glad to see everbody is acting like proper gentlemen here, anyway here's what I think of the US military.


The Army

Our most basic fighting force covering all the aspects of war land, sea and air. Relatively poor troopers they have by far the best equipment available anywhere in the world, courtesy of one of the most resource rich and populated countries in the world of course, but their training is slightly lacking in M16 weapon training a passing grade is hitting a mere 23 of 40 random range pop up targets, rather bad I think. While they are indeed well enough trained to NOT be conscripts, they would in no way be storm troopers. Standard guard would fit these men, where as british or aussie units might be more like, normal guard with sharpshooters, though I could see US getting carapace, we do have a lot of Kevlar....
All in all the ARMY is a pretty mediocore force, luckily they are balanced by there large number of special forces which IMHO are on par with you brits and aussies troopers. The only army Unit I see being Stormtroopers are the airborne and Green Beret.

The Marines

Darn good fighting men, while much like the army their higher standards and better training would likely put them on par with your boys. Their special forces I'd say would qualify for stormtroopers.

The Navy

Well the best technology and and greatest number as well as best or close to training puts them up there with the top. I wouldn't say they're better than the Brits but equal in my opinion.

The AIR FORCE

Well once again money and technology go along way, I'd say the best by far.

I hope no one takes offence to this but this is honestly how I feel.
We Americans were blessed to have such grand resources at our disposal, and it goes a long way to being the best.

FYI, for those interested. The Bradely is the US Armies current IFV and is in no way outdated, though we are incoperating not replacing it with the stryker vehicle.

The United State's single most elite unit consits of just 4-16 men and is called SEAL team 6, they are trained and go through the training of all other applicable nations and are only used in the most dire situations, as of yet, in public knowledge they have been used but for what we don't know. Interestingly they are part of the NAVY.

The challenger is actually slightly worse than our current MBT, the M1A2 Abrams. It has weaker armor, is slower and about the same gun but less advanced targeting systems. The challenger is surviving because they are kept out of cities when ever possible. In a city a tank is extremely vulnerable, as witnessed in Iraq. The challenger is still an excellent tank though.

Contrary to popular belief, if you look back to Vietnam, it is simply realized by the world that the US is the biggest nest nation on the world, maybe not on a soldier to soldier basis, but technology, resources and manpower make it so. A terrorists goal is simple, alienate the US people to their military, so they'll leave, once this is accomplished you'll notice neither Britain nor Australia had any desire to stick around in Vietnam. This is what they are trying to do in Iraq, Britain and Australia simply don't have the time or resources to waste on doing Iraq themselves, the terrorists know this and you should too. That's why they focus on the US and trying anything to make it look bad on america. I am proud of every soldier from any nation that served well in Iraq, but this doesn't change the facts. If Britain were the problem, they would have gotten the 9/11.

On the note of friendly fires even within the allied nations armies there is some comraderie so they all feel bad about it, fratercide isn't caused by lack of training, war is hell and to err is human. But, if you'll notice, most reporters that are killed by fratercide full well deserved it. do your research and you'll see why. Hope to hear from ya all soon, once again try not to take offence, and please PM and give me time to respond before negga repping for anything, it's common courtesy and I'd do the same for you.