Strongest Army, Airforce & Navy in the world?

That's fine. You made it sound like the U.S. Army had something to teach us, the Brits, when the truth is that we simply don't have any deserts of untouched woodlands to train in, so we train with you, in yours.

 

Umm... huh?

Soo.... you not having any deserts or untouched woodlands... wouldn't that mean you don't know anything about desert and woodland combat that you didn't learn training in the U.S.?

Let me clarify something for you... the brit forces that came to NTC were there to learn. Not to just use our desert. They didn't come there to train "with us". In NTC training rotations we (the US forces) are the opposing force (opfor). Your unit comes to train and learn to fight against a desert adversary... in other words, we are the experts. You are there to train.

(and just to rub it in we the opfor, nearly always win . But that is a part of the lesson. Since after each individual battle during a rotation we send our experts to the units in the field to talk about what they did wrong.)

While they are there they also learn a variety of other things as well. For example they learned the value of keeping their equipment clean and what heat driven desert winds combined with sands can do to your equipment.

 

China, strongest army? Z#42X@527#
India, 2nd strongest army @#4^24@

Number of men doesn't equate to superstrength. With advanced military technology and weaponry, a small country may beat a populous meganation.
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9905/28/china.military/

Anyway, this is a rather futile exercise as military strength isn't easy to judge amongst equally powerful nations [Or those that appear that way]. Developed countries definitely have the edge.

Considering Genghis Khan kicked world ass with an army of people from ...... Mongolia, anything is possible. Given the right environment and conditions, any good army may beat any other army.

 

I don't know anything about that stuff, so I can't comment. However, you did say that the UK uses old U.S. Navy equipment. You didn't say the UK uses U.S.-developed equipment, which is fine.

 

The U.S. has learnt far more from the UK than the UK has learnt from the U.S. Your country's, like, only a few years old compared to ours. What's more, your country even used to be ours.

I think you've got too big of a head, mate. I reluctantly remind you that the USA hasn't done very well in any of its recent wars, losing to the Koreans, the Vietnamese, and to the Japanese. In fact, all we hear of these days regarding U.S. forces is how you foolishly killed more innocent civilians or allied soldiers.

 

Patriotism: It makes your country look strong.

I'd say most #Censored# say "My country strongest" just for the heck of it.

 

Dude it's not about having a big head. I am merely stating facts.... You see the problem with your argument of rhetoric is you unfortunately happen to be talking to someone who actually knows what they are talking about....

And to clarify we are talking about who has the best military NOW. Today.... You asked a question and I gave you a factual answer.

You are under the false impression that the UK needs to learn nothing from the U.S. I set you straight on that. That is what just happened here. Do not make the mistake of assuming otherwise.

You were under the false impression that the UK is better equipped. But just a post ago admitted that you use U.S. developed weapons systems.

So to summarize, you learn from us, you train with us, your equipment is provided by or based on U.S. technology or developed by U.S. companies, and our military outnumbers yours.

Did I miss anything?

P.S. All the "recent" war activity you speak of, the brits fought right beside us You just don't hear a lot about that since we LEAD the forces. If the brits were a larger and better army why have U.S. forces not been under british command instead of the other way around?

Please inform yourself before you speak. Thanks.

 

LOL yeah ok.

 

That would actually be funny if you had the slightest argument to debunk what I've said here But alas it just looks like a schoolyard taunt with zero meaning Isn't that what teenage girls say when you corner them with an argument and they have nothing to say? "Pshh... yeah ok, whatever"

I have worked for the U.S. DoD in some form my entire adult life and I'm 34. So yeah, I have a little insight here.

 

Welcome to the internets. We pretend to be people we are not and diss people who are what they are.

 

It's really pathetic how these webmasters have not got a clue yet they put up their "dream" list. Indians, you gotta give it to them, very much patriotic, will try to make sense out of anything. Indians, I agree you have a strong army but nowhere in the top5.

India #1 is just in bollywood movies.

 

That's a joke, right? You would have to learn how to write before I can take you seriously.

No, you didn't. You gave an opinion. I should remind you that "best" is a relative word. What if the question was, which country has the best military relative to military spending and population size? What would your answer be then?

What just happened here was that you couldn't think of anything to counter my argument that the U.S. has learnt far more from the UK.

Now you're just making shit up. The U.S. is currently far better equipped than the UK.

Actually, we train with each other. And I'm sure we do use each other's equipment. But that last statement concerning numbers doesn't mean anything. Of course, your forces outnumber ours. We're a nation of only 60 million, compared to your 300 million. Yet who do you think exerts more power over the world relative to population size?

Huh?! That's news to me.

When have British forces been under U.S. command? Have you lost your mind, dude?!

 

Well... no, it's not. I have already demonstrated to you that I have first hand knowledge of what I'm talking about. Care to debunk that? Calling it a joke without making any argument to explain why makes you look silly, not me.

Go back and reread. The factual answer I gave you was in reference to you asking "what the UK could possibly learn from the U.S." I stated so and gave you a practical example. See how that works?

You = statements.
Me = facts based on actual first hand experience and knowledge.

It's really not so hard a concept to grasp is it?

Again, all I stated was what just happened here. You are trying to make it seem otherwise but my posts are there for you and anyone else to see. You asked what the UK could possibly learn from the U.S. and I told you.

But here, I'll give you an opportunity to redeem yourself.... I'll give you an open question like you gave me.... What is the UK training the U.S. on these days?

Oh ok, so we're better equipped. Guess we agree?

So again it looks like we agree. All I did was explain to you and give you one of actually quite a few examples I know of where the brit forces are trained by U.S. forces.

HAHA except in that bolded part your argument is falling apart and now it's about being "relative to population size"

I know! It's news to you because you're making blind statements that demonstrate your ignorance on the matter

You didn't know brit forces are a part of the Iraq invasion? You didn't know that General Patreaus is the supreme commander of those allied forces?

No I again, just know what I'm talking about... see my last sentence there for an example.

 

I can't be bothered to respond to all that individually. In fact, in some instances, I don't even know what you're talking about. So, I'll just speak generally . . .

I'm sure the US has taught the UK a few things here and there. However, even you must agree that the UK has taught the US far more.

You keep making it sound like the US sometimes controls UK forces. The truth is, there'll be nuclear war before such a thing could ever happen.

And, to conclude, I'll repeat myself . . . Relative to spending and population size, the UK is far more powerful than the US, exerting far more control and power. Can you prove me wrong in that regard?

 

Ahh ok. Well I'm glad you clarified yourself.

Because if you'll remember this discussion between you and I started when you jumped in and asked the silly question "what could the UK possibly learn from the U.S.". And I told you.

It was funny to me because you asked that question as if your army is so mighty they need no assistance. Dude Iraq's army is larger than yours The UK isn't even in the top 10 on ANY list.

As for your statement proving that you have no idea what a supreme allied commander is and how that means the UK troops were under and have been under U.S. command quite a few times in history, well, I'm speechless.

But to answer your question directly, you're right I had no argument for your statement that the UK teaches the U.S. far more. The reason is because it's a ridiculous statement and I have no idea what you're talking about

Examples please?

 

Weren't we talking on an absolute basis? Relative to spending and population size....the vatican city probably has the most powerful army.

If we are talking about military supremacy, you gotta give it to the US. They have more military bases across the globe than any other country. Right from pacific ocean to the atlantic to the Indian Ocean, they have militiary bases everywhere.

 

Show me one of these lists. In fact, I insist that you do.

Once again, I'll repeat myself . . . The UK is far more powerful than the US when spending and population size are taken into account. You seem to be avoiding responding to this, because you know that it's true. That's the funny part!

The US is the third largest country in the world in terms of population. The UK is the twenty-second largest. The US has just under 245,000,000 more people than the UK, yet the US's empire is nothing compared to the one built by the British, the greatest one in history.

To make things worse, the US empire is already on the way out, only after ~75 years! China will take over within 25 years, and India within 50 years. Compared to other empires, yours is embarrassingly ephemeral.

 

US Army - The Regular Army reported a strength of just under 546,000 soldiers. The Army National Guard (ARNG) reported 350,000 and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) reported 189,000, putting the approximate combined component strength total around 1,082,000 soldiers.

UK Army - The British Army had a reported strength of 102,440 in 2005, the Royal Air Force a strength of 49,210 and the 36,320-strong Royal Navy, which includes the Royal Marines, who provide commando units specialising in amphibious warfare.

Now if you consider, that both nations are equally well trained and well equipped, the US would win hands down simply due to the much larger number of soldiers. Add to that its presence in many more locations when compared to the UK....

When there is a war, will the UK derive any advantage just because it is spending much lesser than the US or has a smaller population than the US? How can being smaller in size or spending lesser ever be an advantage? If you take the population and the military spend, as I said earlier, the Vatican city will probably be the most powerful military force.

True, 50 years down the line U.S. will probably lose its supremacy but so could UK. Lets talk present. As an economist once said, in the long term....we are all dead!

 

Peepin2me, I agree that the US is currently far more powerful than the UK. That wasn't being disputed. My point was simple . . . If military spending and population size were considered, the UK would come out as exerting far more power. And, here, I'm only talking about the US and the UK. If the rest of the world were considered, then, yes, the Vatican would probably come out top.