What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Who has the 4th best military ??

OP
Q

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
17,244
Reaction score
8,920
Points
1,138
Location
Las Vegas
Israel AF is superior to any European nation
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,467
Reaction score
17,492
Points
2,300
Oz and the Orchestra
..like I said, you don't know much about the military/wars/etc ......
1. you didn't understand a single thing in my post
2. wars are MORE than just weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhahahaahah...jesus christ--in fact, logistics/etc determines battles
3. here's a BIG one = Iraq's military not only had the knowlege of the terrain/weather--but the had war experience --and experience in that terrain and weather--big advantage
4. Scuds = HAHHAHAHAHAAHAH ..
--a. irrelevant
--b..Scuds used up a lot of Allied power including SAS and aircraft
5. etc
..if Israel and the US were not better, they would not have won!!! DUH --especially considering my points in the previous points
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,467
Reaction score
17,492
Points
2,300
Oz and the Orchestra
..another example of wars not just about weapons: - Israel came up with a SYSTEM to turn aircraft around super fast ..this greatly helped in the Six Day War......
...and another thing, in the air war with Syria, where Israel kicked ass, an IDF pilot said they would have been victorious if they had Syria's planes
--I'll tell you something right now--mediocre weapons in motivated, and well trained hands are better than great weapons in unmotivated and untrained hands---it wasn't just the weapons..
..I was in the military for 8 years ..I've been reading and researching wars/etc for longer than you have been born
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
444
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Israel had state-of-the-art aircraft supplied by the US. The opposition had the USSR's outdated cast off Migs. Same thing with Sadam - a huge military but too outdated to even launch a sustained defense.
Scud missiles, they would fire them at Tel Aviv and they would land near Haifa.

Oh hardly!

Are you aware that a lot of the equipment used by the Arab States was actually American made? And that the main fighter (MiG-21) was just as formidable as any the Israeli's used?

No, more than anything they were trying to use a doctrine and tactics that only worked once, and never again. And that is the one instructed by the Warsaw Pact.

Which I myself largely laugh at, and have for decades. It really only worked once, and that was by the Soviets who were literally fighting a forest fire by smothering it in bodies. That worked for them with their massive army, but no other military that has ever tried it has won. The Arab States tried many times, North Vietnam tried, North Korea tried. Even Iraq tried it against Iran, which ultimately turned into a decade long struggle in a war of Warsaw Pact against Warsaw Pact.

Israel on the other hand took it's clue from the US and NATO. Keep your forces flexible, and allow commanders to use their own initiative when appropriate.

And SCUD missiles never have been, and never will be "Military Weapons". They are a political terror weapon, intended to damage the will to fight much more than any direct effect they would have on a battlefield. Along the lines of pointing a gun at a neighbor, and yelling "Back off of me, or I will shoot her!"

I find it amazing that you do not recognize that. SCUD missiles are no more a "military weapon" than nukes are.
 

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
412
Points
198
USA then Russia then China

Then a huge huge drop off


British have a good navy and special forces
Israel has bad azzz Air Force and special forces
French have good balance
How are you gauging best? I mean the USA has the most useless aircraft carriers that count for nothing in a real war
Not proven in warfare. On the other hand supercarriers ability to withstand and survive the equivalent of impacts by more than a half dozen missiles is a proven fact.
 

Oz and the Orchestra

Platinum Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
2,720
Reaction score
1,421
Points
938
Location
Lake District England
Oz and the Orchestra
..like I said, you don't know much about the military/wars/etc ......
1. you didn't understand a single thing in my post
2. wars are MORE than just weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhahahaahah...jesus christ--in fact, logistics/etc determines battles
3. here's a BIG one = Iraq's military not only had the knowlege of the terrain/weather--but the had war experience --and experience in that terrain and weather--big advantage
4. Scuds = HAHHAHAHAHAAHAH ..
--a. irrelevant
--b..Scuds used up a lot of Allied power including SAS and aircraft
5. etc
..if Israel and the US were not better, they would not have won!!! DUH --especially considering my points in the previous points
That is what I said the Isreali's/US had superior technology that is why they won.

When British Aerospace sells aircraft to Suadi Arabia training the pilots and all the logistics involved in making the system work is also part of the package as it was with Israel and the US.
 
OP
Q

Quasar44

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2020
Messages
17,244
Reaction score
8,920
Points
1,138
Location
Las Vegas
I went into a UK board and all I got was 100 percent anti Semitism
 

skye

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
44,444
Reaction score
30,787
Points
2,635
Only in an actual war.....

we will see

who has the 4th best military

or the 1st best one....for that matter....my friends....

no more babbling....a lil bit of action.... that's better to show who is the best!

Yes? yes Sir.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
444
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Oz and the Orchestra
..like I said, you don't know much about the military/wars/etc ......
1. you didn't understand a single thing in my post
2. wars are MORE than just weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahhahahaahah...jesus christ--in fact, logistics/etc determines battles
3. here's a BIG one = Iraq's military not only had the knowlege of the terrain/weather--but the had war experience --and experience in that terrain and weather--big advantage
4. Scuds = HAHHAHAHAHAAHAH ..
--a. irrelevant
--b..Scuds used up a lot of Allied power including SAS and aircraft
5. etc
..if Israel and the US were not better, they would not have won!!! DUH --especially considering my points in the previous points
That is what I said the Isreali's/US had superior technology that is why they won.

When British Aerospace sells aircraft to Suadi Arabia training the pilots and all the logistics involved in making the system work is also part of the package as it was with Israel and the US.

No, it is not. And no, they did not.

What they had was a superior doctrine. You are making the mistake of all "Armchair Generals", and looking entirely in the wrong location to why wars are won.
 

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
4,873
Reaction score
2,006
Points
893
Quasar44
I don't see how anyone can assess what China has. Being patriotic doesnt affect their capabilities.
Don't assume anything about them.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
444
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Oz and the Orchestra
training--motivation--not the weapons
Training and motivation counted for jack shit in Saddam's case. His forces were routed within weeks by the massive superiority in the technology of the US/British forces.
Saddam had spent the last decade locked in an endless war with Iran, a country that was much largest both militarily and in population. That was actually technologically superior at the time. As at that stage, they still had a lot of the best equipment that the US would sell to other nations.

But they still resulted in a decade long stalemate, because both were largely using Warsaw Pact doctrine against each other, taught to them by the Soviets and advisors they had trained. A decade long slaughter, and in the end both thought they had won.

The problem of Saddam, is that he thought that the struggle of the Coalition to take back Kuwait would be a repeat of the Iran-Iraq War. He saw the troubles either side had in making progress against the other, and the almost insane casualty counts and thought the Gulf War would be a repeat of that. And in reality, he had some of the best equipment that the Soviet Union would sell to foreign nations.

So technologically, they were actually about equal. However, what mattered was US doctrine, and training. The Iraqi Forces were not routed from Kuwait in a 2 day war because of technology, we simply fought better, smarter, and with a determination that shocked the piss out of them. The coalition forces were able to operate in a way that they had never anticipated, and he did not even realize that they were pulling his strings almost from day one.

Just look at the Battle of 73 Easting sometime. Roughly 4,000 US Infantry and 300 armored vehicles, against 3,500 Elite Iraqi Infantry, and over 400 elite Iraqi armored vehicles. And it ended with an almost complete route. The US lost 6 men, Iraq around 1,000. The US lost a single M3 Bradley APC, Iraq lost 160 tanks, 180 APCs, and other equipment ranging from artillery to trucks.

Only an absolute idiot would think that is all due to technology. Especially considering we were fighting on "their home field", and they were actually dug into defensive positions. All conventional "military wisdom" said it should have been a slaughter. But Iraq had a large military, in reality it never was a very good one. He had the entire nation believing that his Republican Guards were the baddest force on the planet. Yet, they were ultimately destroyed like the rest of his forces, with little effort. Because like all of his forces, they were using training and doctrine 50 years out of date.

Hell, why do you think the Soviets were so shocked at the end of the Gulf War? That proved once and for all that the "Warsaw Pact" doctrine they had been teaching themselves and their satellite nations for half a century was all a lie. And that shook most of the Warsaw Pact, and soon after they collapsed, one by one. By that time they realized they were only to be used as cannon fodder for Soviet Expansion, and ultimately destroyed in the conflict if it started.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
444
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
Quasar44
I don't see how anyone can assess what China has. Being patriotic doesnt affect their capabilities.
Don't assume anything about them.

China is much like Iraq in that aspect.

Yes, they have some neat toys. But what they completely lack is the doctrine and training to ever put them to use.

They sortie out their "Carrier" and a few destroyers for a few weeks, then crow to the world how great they are as they all sail back to port, screaming to anybody that will listen how mighty they are, and how the US trembles.

Meanwhile, the US largely snickers, as they keep an entire Carrier Battle Group at sea and supplied half a world away for periods of up to a year. And can do it repeatedly, year after year for decades.

China, in reality it only has an up-gunned Coast Guard. They do not use it like a true "Navy". Never have, and never will. They think having "nice toys" makes them a "Superpower", but it does not. And someday that is going to bite them in the ass.

And it is easy to assess what China can do, because they brag to the world about it constantly. The BEST FIGHTER, the BEST TANK, the BEST SHIP, the BEST BOMBER, the BEST MISSILE ever. They do it over and over and over again, and then leave behind a litter of half delivered promises and failed projects that those who really watch military equipment largely laugh at. And have as of yet never shown any kind of doctrine that would be a threat to any nation that did not directly border their own nation.
 

Mushroom

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2012
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
444
Points
198
Location
Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
And a clarification on my last post.

China can someday make the PLAAN a "True Navy", but I doubt they ever will. In fact, the very name (People's Liberation Army Navy) shows which they think is more important, and that the Navy only exists to support the Army.

Like the UK, the US spent centuries expanding their capabilities. Not just of their ships, but in supporting them and keeping them in operation for months at a time at sea and far from port. This was shown in WWII, where they supported forces in both the Pacific and Atlantic, with ships gone in combat zones for months on end, yet still kept supplied and sending and receiving mail. Meanwhile most of the Japanese Navy tended to stay near port, only assembling to go out on a mission, then returning.

Whenever this comes up, I bring up the same things over and over again. UNREP. Or "Underway Replenishment". The US is recognized as the leader in the world in this area. We have supported Carriers and their entire battle groups deployed in combat theaters for up to a year at a time, actually engaged in Combat. When we helped in the mission off Somalia against Pirates, we just shrugged and did it, no problem.

Years later when China did it, they almost immediately started to scream they could not support a couple of destroyers so far away. They now have ports and supply bases from Pakistan to Djibouti just to support a few destroyers. Some see this as a sign of "expansionism", I see it as a serious fundamental lack in their own logistical capabilities. We send a tight and well trained and organized Carrier Group to the area around Taiwan for months on end, they slip out and do a 2 week exercise with an ad hoc fleet, and after 2 weeks they are sailing right back to port.

Now, if they ever do start directly supporting their ships off the Horn of Africa themselves without relying upon other ports to do it, I will start to take notice. If they assemble an actual Carrier Group and have it do stops around the Pacific for 6-9 months as we have been doing for over half a century, I will start to take notice. But as of yet, they have shown no indications of doing so. Hell, even the Soviets did that, and they have been gone for almost 3 decades. China has never done it, is making no attempt to do it, and shows no sign of doing it.

They have no comprehension of what having a "Real Navy" is like, just as they do not comprehend what having a real "Air Force" or "Army" is. They build some interesting toys, but without the rest it literally is just a bunch of toys and not of a serious threat to anybody they do not share a border with.

Hell, their last major conflict was with Vietnam, in 1979. Once again a nation they share a border with. They stormed in, did a lot of damage, and left to teach Vietnam a lesson. But if they tried that with a nation they do not share a border with, things would be nothing like that. They literally have nobody left in uniform that has done more than march around in over 4 decades.
 
Last edited:

Colin norris

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Messages
4,873
Reaction score
2,006
Points
893
Mushroom
We might be confused. Is this the same China that flattened the American economy over tariffs? That come from a country of poverty 60 years ago to now about to overtake America as the world's biggest economy?
No discipline etc??
Are you kidding?

If they are a pushover, why don't we take them on blast communism off the face of the earth? They just cripples the nation with a virus and you imply they are all dumb. Grow up.
 

harmonica

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
41,467
Reaction score
17,492
Points
2,300
Oz and the Orchestra
hahahhahahahahahahahahahah!!!!WOOOOHOOOOOOO
THAT'S the point!!!!!!! the IDF and US forces are better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHHAHAHAHAHAH....godamn!!!! THAT'S the whole point!!!!!!!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top