I really don't know how much is too many since in the last years we don't have anything to compare really. Didn't see much of this kind of conventional wars in the last ten years. I agree that maybe there was too many but Russians really didn't have time to send more troops and ! better armies ! If we consider how much better equipped Georgians were and numbers of personell were quite similar then Russians did a good job having two times lower military casulties than Georgians....
Well I don't know it seems that GB has better, newer equipment. Better Navy and Airforce. Also man power is really not an issue for both countries Anyway both countries are kind of not beatable...
Normally dont post in this forum but.... Being in the US Navy my answer is going to be biased but still true. Shear numbers of an Army means jack if you cant get them anywhere. Who really cares if you have a 1 billion person Army if you cant bring 1 billion people to any country. Back to the Navy though. Without a doubt it is the US. I know first hand that most countries are using old US Navy equipment, ships, weapon systems, ect. We actually train most the Navies out there also. Since there hasnt been a Naval battle in an extremely long time it is impossible to judge. But technology is the key to a battle and US holds that. For you people from the UK that will respond, yes you are using old US Navy equipment on your ships... When it comes down to it though, it about who has the most nuclear submarines (if you want to talk power wise).
although it might sound a bit hypothetical but, who do u think will win a war between Russia & the U.K ??
The one who would defend wound win. I mean you don't expect Brits to occupy Russia and vice-versa ? The Brits already tried one time and many others tried but we all know how hard they fell and broke their noses I also think that anyone that goes after GB would fail miserably as some already did....
...& by their naval forces too!! how do u assume that?? i think the U.S. & Russia are in a different league altogether.... Russia is still feared although, it has lost much of its military might!! but that doesn`t mean the U.K. would be able to resist Russian attack on its own. infact, to go back down the memory lane, u would remember that the Germans came very close to beating the Brits & finally that assault was thwarted courtesy, the allied forces.
Germany didn't beat Britain because, after The Battle of Britain and The Blitz, the Nazis lost their air superiority over the English Channel, cancelled Operation Sealion (the planned sea invasion of Britain) and ultimately they didn't break the spirit of the British people as they expected to, not even with the V-weapons. Hitler then mistakenly turned his attention to invading Russia. That was the turning point that weakened Germany's ability to overcome Britain and, of course, from then the Allies certainly played a greater part. The Allies that helped defend Britain in the early years were small numbers of exiles (French, Poles, Belgians, Dutch, Czechs etc) plus members of the commonwealth (Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis etc). The Americans played a huge part later on and, of course, the Russians did too, so it's a real mix of reasons as to why Britain wasn't beaten by Germany, but the crux of the matter was that Hitler made a BIG mistake on taking up the eastern front.
Numbers are important, but not as important as logistics, planning, intelligence, technology and equipment. In those regards, the Brits are near the top. And if the Brits had the same numbers as the US or others, they'll be right at the top.
I would like to see proof of that. And if it is true, I would like to remind you that the US Navy learned much of what they know from us, the Brits.
Precisely what "technology" and "training" are you basing that on? What is this technology you speak of that only the UK has? What advanced training do UK soldiers partake in that no one else is capable of? I see UK forces coming to train and learn from us all the time. I'm not being combative when I make that statement, I am truly interested in learning which nation has the "best" all around Army or armed forces in general out of my own curiosity. But for now, having been a U.S. Army officer and being that I still work with them on a daily basis I am merely speaking from my own experience when I conclude that the U.S. is. Even if you base it on just the Army (which is a mistake because the Army is only 1 component of a nation's overall military strength) we have both the best training and technology. We may not beat China in terms of numbers but we outnumber all of the rest, and we beat China based on training... so it's a simple equation to me.... Plus if you're defining "Army" as ground forces our armored tank divisions and wheeled attack units are without question the largest AND most technologically advanced in the world. We also have a whole separate army called the Marines that we haven't even discussed yet
OK. people lets be clear, To take US spot being # 1, It will take decades, if that happen it won't India, UK, Russia, or France.
Russian here 1. We defeated Chingis Han 2. We defeated Napoleon 3. We defeated Hitler Maybe even 0. Defeating clans of european crusaders (very strong) in very early middle ages. When I say we, I don't talk about 100% "we", but definitely in region of 70-80% "we", and defeated usually without any erm...powerups on our side As well as taking major insult, so other "armies" can show something as well Any more questions ? Georgia ? HAHAHAHAHA! Nevermind.... It's not about projection power, it's all about results. End one.
Well I could name a few actually. We do joint training exercises hosted by, commanded by, and developed by the U.S. Army and or other DoD agencies. But to give you a better example.... The United States Army has 2 major training and battle simulation commands. 1 is at Ft. Irwin California (I was stationed there 1994-1996) called the national training center (NTC). Because it is out in the middle of the California Mojave desert it's sole mission is to rotate American and our allies' units through month long training exercises where actual desert combat is simulated in as realistic a manner as possible. I saw British UK, Aussie, and even some Israeli forces on nearly every rotation as add on or main combat forces. (Like I said I was stationed there so I know a LOT about that place and the training that takes place there. Feel free to ask ) There is also the woodland equivalent to the NTC.... it's called the joint readiness training center (JRTC) at Ft Polk Louisiana and it does the same thing the NTC dos only in a woodland environment. UK forces come there as well. Need more?
Actually my misguided friend, projection power is exactly what it's all about. But let's see you say that when we're in your country bombing, raiding with ground forces, and rolling tanks down your street while our population sits at home and watches it on TV safe and sound
"But let's see you say that when we're in your country bombing, raiding with ground forces, and rolling tanks down your street while our population sits at home and watches it on TV safe and sound" Haha... and when this were happened ? All our major enemies have been crushed, killed and destroyed.