EVE Search - Best Military in the World?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Best Military in the World?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cipher7 VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.25 12:10:00 - [61] US weapon technology Israeli street smarts Russian vodka Chinese manpower
Reiisha Splint Eye Probabilities Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.25 12:40:00 - [62] Originally by: Dave White Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day! You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult. EVE History Wiki
Keorythe Caldari Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.25 13:50:00 - [63] Conventional army standings have to do with technology, numbers, and training. The two that fit those categories the best are China and the US. The US has China beat on technology and training. The Chinese beat the US on numbers. China is also increasing the level of training substantially. Technology is slowly building up in China but it is a slow process with more emphasis put on mass production than quality. Against an untrained horde numbers dont make much of a difference with today's military tech but when faced with comparitively trained units numbers make a large difference. I want to throw Russian up there but their defense budgets went down the tubes. Training, recruitment, and even weapon tech is still slow. Putin might increase that though, we'll see. The UK, Canada, Australia, and most of the EU have good technology and training but lack in numbers greatly. India has numbers but miltary tech and training isn't that great. If they ever decided to increase military spending theirs could become a force to be reckoned with. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
armas Gallente Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.11.25 14:05:00 - [64] Originally by: Reiisha Originally by: Dave White Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day! You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult. lol, ofc. Anyway, pound for pound my vote would be Israel.
Yarrick Amarr Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2007.11.25 14:06:00 - [65] Originally by: Reiisha Originally by: Dave White Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day! You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult. People may joke about the Dutch, but they are one of the few countrys that are taking an effective fighting role on the front lines in Afghanistan. So good on you boys!! They may be small but atleast they're willing to fight. _____________________________________________
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2007.11.25 14:06:00 - [66] Edited by: SoftRevolution on 25/11/2007 14:16:58 Massed ground forces are what we have/had tactical nukes for. Israel are looking a lot less 1337 after the July War. Whoever mentioned TV cameras probably wins the thread as far as demoractic first world nations are concerned. EVE RELATED CONTENT
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services	Posted - 2007.11.25 14:29:00 - [67] Originally by: Yarrick Originally by: Reiisha Originally by: Dave White Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day! You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult. People may joke about the Dutch, but they are one of the few countrys that are taking an effective fighting role on the front lines in Afghanistan. So good on you boys!! They may be small but atleast they're willing to fight. good your helping us down there! (North ex army British) tho comment about SAS SAS is still on top! Originally by: Lucius Dracus Originally by: northwesten USA for best tech weapons UK for best trained and most professional forces in the World. This. Good someone agrees. Tho i like ot add China has the manpower but that wouldnt last! They just get bomber to hell before they reach are troops. Free Corporation website? click here Trinity Corporate Services Website
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.25 15:22:00 - [68] Originally by: Reiisha Originally by: Dave White Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day! You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult. I've talked to some special forces types and the opinion among them is there is no "better" among that group of people (when they are being honest and not biased to their own side). When it comes to SAS or SEALS or Spetsnaz or Sayeret Golani or the 108th Korps Commando Troepen they are all about the same in terms of badassery. The guys I talked to basically said it was near impossible to reliably argue who is "better" as the difference would come down to something like who had a better night's sleep. These guys are all trained to the Nth degree and are mean customers.
Der Komissar	Posted - 2007.11.25 15:38:00 - [69] Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana "3000km forest that way"
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services	Posted - 2007.11.25 15:40:00 - [70] Edited by: northwesten on 25/11/2007 15:40:25 Originally by: Der Komissar Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana "3000km forest that way" The French of all people cant say crap Free Corporation website? click here Trinity Corporate Services Website
Khadur Minmatar GREY COUNCIL Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.11.25 15:46:00 - [71] Those sneaky russians
Lady Centrina	Posted - 2007.11.25 15:52:00 - [72] Originally by: Der Komissar Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana "3000km forest that way" Yes, by all means lets believe the French. I do believe that the French were steamrolled not once but twice by the Germans in the 1900's and the only reason they don't speak German is because of the US. In my opinion the US would have been better off to let ****** keep France during WWII. If the US had instead focused on better parts of Europe, like Hungry, Romania and Austria to name a few the EU would be the most formidable force outside of North America. The French are weaklings, they have continued to believe they are great based off of battles that took place 200 years ago. In a world of what have you done for me lately, they are not any better off than some of the African tribes in Congo or Sudan. Clarifying point: The media is distorting the efforts of the American forces in Iraq. The media reports that X number of US troops were killed in a day or month, but do you notice that they never mention how many insurgents were killed? The US has lost approx 4,000 troops since 2003, well over 150,000 Iraqi's and foreign insurgents have been killed during that same time frame, so you tell me, who is winning the war?
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:17:00 - [73] Originally by: Der Komissar Some French Foreign Legion dude said in an interview that SEALS were pussies that couldn't handle the tropical enviroments of french new guyana "3000km forest that way" IIRC the French Foreign Legion is NOT a special forces unit and is generally a haven for criminals avoiding jail. Not the sort I would look to for reliable advice in special forces units.
Sereifex Daku Gemini Sun Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:18:00 - [74] LOL! The French. That just made my day.
Valan Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:19:00 - [75] The French battled constantly despite being overrun as did many Europeans. Their forces were still in disarray after being in debt from the Great War. The Russians defeated a large portion of the German army. Great Britain broke the back of the Luftwaffe and removed the Germans from Africa. The US did the last minute cavalry thing in Europe to take a great big chunk of the German technology they knew about from defecting scientists and they didn't want the Russians getting it all. Where do you think the final piece of the jigsaw came from for those first nukes? We're still paying the USA back for World War II, you didn't do it out of the goodness of your heart. Thats why we're in Iraq, our troops are helping pay the old debt. So greatful as we are it wasn't for the cause. You have a point about truthful reporting. We don't get the stories where a convoy of humvees slaughter wedding parties in Bosnia because someone fired a gun in the air celebrating, despite the troops being briefed beforehand. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:20:00 - [76] Originally by: Lady Centrina Clarifying point: The media is distorting the efforts of the American forces in Iraq. The media reports that X number of US troops were killed in a day or month, but do you notice that they never mention how many insurgents were killed? The US has lost approx 4,000 troops since 2003, well over 150,000 Iraqi's and foreign insurgents have been killed during that same time frame, so you tell me, who is winning the war? Who's winning the war? Easy...Iran. You can win the battles but lose the war. Look at Vietnam...the US won in almost every number you want to point to and by a big margin. Still lost overall.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:30:00 - [77] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 25/11/2007 16:31:46 Originally by: Valan The French battled constantly despite being overrun as did many Europeans. Their forces were still in disarray after being in debt from the Great War. The Russians defeated a large portion of the German army. Great Britain broke the back of the Luftwaffe and removed the Germans from Africa. The US did the last minute cavalry thing in Europe to take a great big chunk of the German technology they knew about from defecting scientists and they didn't want the Russians getting it all. Where do you think the final piece of the jigsaw came from for those first nukes? Last minute cavalry? Huh? I seem to recall the Brits and Americans being the largest contingent of the D-Day invasion and worked to push the Germans all the way back to Berlin. Not to mention the US running all over North Africa and then Italy prior to that. Not like the Allies were 20 miles from Berlin and THEN the US came in. As for nukes Germany provided nothing towards their development by providing some missing piece. The Manhattan Project was a HUGE undertaking (I think it remains the largest single cost for any scientific project ever). The Germans surrendered in early May, the first nuke was tested in mid-July. In fact, had Germany not surrendered I believe the intention was to drop the first nukes on Germany.
Benny Hill Caldari Deceased Inc	Posted - 2007.11.25 17:07:00 - [78] Originally by: Reiisha Originally by: Dave White Holland's, ofcourse. Our 5 man army will take your country on any day! You can joke about that, but apparently our elite unit is better by far better than stuff like the SAS or the Seals. Seems the training is ridiculously difficult. Any military unit that lacks leaders with actual combat experience is half as good as any other unit. I am sure Hollands's special forces are very good on an obstacle course. But without commanders with actual combat experience, they are no better than trainees of the S.A.S. or SEALS.
Benny Hill Caldari Deceased Inc	Posted - 2007.11.25 17:23:00 - [79] Edited by: Benny Hill on 25/11/2007 17:23:43 Originally by: Valan The French battled constantly despite being overrun as did many Europeans. Their forces were still in disarray after being in debt from the Great War. The Russians defeated a large portion of the German army. Great Britain broke the back of the Luftwaffe and removed the Germans from Africa. It may seem that the war in Africa from the Allies was soley the UK. That was because they were fighting there longer. When the Allies secured North Africa, there were almost as many, maybe even more US troops than British. You are overlooking Operation Torch.
Abraham Azadian Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.25 17:47:00 - [80] Originally by: Lady Centrina Yes, by all means lets believe the French. I do believe that the French were steamrolled not once but twice by the Germans in the 1900's and the only reason they don't speak German is because of the US. In my opinion the US would have been better off to let ****** keep France during WWII. If the US had instead focused on better parts of Europe, like Hungry, Romania and Austria to name a few the EU would be the most formidable force outside of North America. The French are weaklings, they have continued to believe they are great based off of battles that took place 200 years ago. In a world of what have you done for me lately, they are not any better off than some of the African tribes in Congo or Sudan. You're a fecking ignorant tard. WW1 wasn't lost and the germans were exhausted when the brave USA finally decided to get involved in 1917. So you believe wrong, French got their ass handed to them in WW2 like most european countries and the brits got saved not by their military genius but the Channel. And if the USA hadn't gotten involved (in 1941 thanks for pearl harbor) the french would be talking russian by now like the rest of europe would. Funny that you name Austria among the others, have you ever heard of the Anschluss (political annexation of austria by na.z.i germany 1938) and how the austrian people were totally exastic about it ? These dreams of "grandeur" based on 200 years old battles are just in your minds, French people have dropped jingoism a long time ago is your country in the same case ? What have they done for you lately ? Tard, the french were in the frontline in 2002 in afghanistan and are still there working with US troops and other euro troops. News to you, 9/11 wasn't linked to irak in any way, stop watching TV and grow up or the FOX will eat your brain. Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible **... me!
fieraofsun	Posted - 2007.11.25 18:20:00 - [81] Shouldnt even be a question of who has the best Military... US hands down. Best trained, Best equipted, Best Technology. And lets try to remember peoples. Lets not hate the army the soldiers are doing what they are told. Hate the politican that is telling them what do.
Kirjava Lothian Quay Industries Zzz	Posted - 2007.11.25 18:43:00 - [82] Let's remember that although the Americas would be safe from Chinese invasion due to the Pacific Ocean, Europe is not so similarly spared..... If it came to it they could just march West and get here with a walking army On the otherhand, we could just build fortresses in the Ural's and just wait till we run out of ammo. Originally by: N1fty So what your really trying to get at is that the universe is in fact Emo?
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.25 18:47:00 - [83] Amazingly enough, had the USA not entered the end of WWI it could have gone very differently, Germany broke through the lines in 3 or 4 different places. pushed the allies way back into France, then the US troops arrived, as ineffectual as they initially were through lack of experience... they plugged the holes and exhausted Germany's last supplies. And people say that Russia would have been able to take on Germany on their own in WW2, but keep in mind... Germany's downfall at that point was not fighting Russia, it was fighting on two fronts, had the USA not entered the war.. D-Day would never have happened, Germany would have been able to secure oil supplies by defeating the outnumbered British in north Africa and focus all its attention on fighting Russia. And for all ******s mistakes.. i don't see him making the Russian winter mistake twice. The answer is, as always, had any one of the factors been different, so would have the outcome, fairly obviously. The UK has a very advanced, efficient and advanced military. but we only have 100,000 troops. -------------------------------------------- THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE!
Mudkest MetaForge Ekliptika	Posted - 2007.11.25 19:06:00 - [84] Originally by: pwnedgato Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go. meanwhile, you are shipping reservists! to iraq and afghanistan cause you dont have enough troops otherwise. and how many wars have you actualy won in the past 100 years? WWI? nope, you werent in it(merely sold supplies to the highest bidder, wich wasnt germany) WWII? it were the Russians that beat ******, not the US army. How about Korea? longest cease-fire ever.. The pig bay?(well I suppose that wasnt the US military though) Afghanistan? still going on. Iraq? dunno, what's that war about so how can you say you win or loose it? You are confusing most expensive with best... ----- GIEV custom ship paint jobs! I want my hello-kitty-kessie! For your safety do not destroy vital testing apparatus
Sereifex Daku Gemini Sun Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.25 19:13:00 - [85] To be fair, America hasn't 'won' a war in a long time because the rules of war has changed immensely over the past one or two centuries. It started when we stopped keeping the land we conquered, instead giving it back. That's the way I see it, anyway.
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.25 19:14:00 - [86] Originally by: Mudkest Originally by: pwnedgato Simply put the US military is the most powerful. Why? because of all the militaries in the world we are the only country in the world that has the capability to move our forces where they need to go. meanwhile, you are shipping reservists! to iraq and afghanistan cause you dont have enough troops otherwise. and how many wars have you actualy won in the past 100 years? WWI? nope, you werent in it(merely sold supplies to the highest bidder, wich wasnt germany) WWII? it were the Russians that beat ******, not the US army. How about Korea? longest cease-fire ever.. The pig bay?(well I suppose that wasnt the US military though) Afghanistan? still going on. Iraq? dunno, what's that war about so how can you say you win or loose it? You are confusing most expensive with best... Did you not read what i just wrote? -------------------------------------------- THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE! THE CAKE IS A LIE!
Mudkest MetaForge Ekliptika	Posted - 2007.11.25 19:21:00 - [87] Originally by: Lady Centrina Clarifying point: The media is distorting the efforts of the American forces in Iraq. The media reports that X number of US troops were killed in a day or month, but do you notice that they never mention how many insurgents were killed? The US has lost approx 4,000 troops since 2003, well over 150,000 Iraqi's and foreign insurgents have been killed during that same time frame, so you tell me, who is winning the war? I might be able to tell, if you could explain what that war is all about. How can you win if you dont know the victory condistion? ----- GIEV custom ship paint jobs! I want my hello-kitty-kessie! For your safety do not destroy vital testing apparatus
digitalwanderer Gallente Archon Industries	Posted - 2007.11.25 19:36:00 - [88] Originally by: Sharupak No no, dont get me wrong, I would like war and weapons and generally the human mindset to kill each other to get ahead to go away. When I say mach battle, I mean just that...not a real one a fake one in an environment that could predict a winner without real combat. Like a computer simulation. Got it now... Quote: With that being addressed, there are many more elements to warfare than tech level of equipment and how much of it you have. Infact, that is probably the least significant factor in winning a battle. The U.S. military actually spends more money on command control and communications than either weapons or training. The reason America can take on armies 10 times her size in conventional warfare is because of a philosophy that took about 50 years to realize. This has led to a term called network centric warfare. All units on the battlefield are linked to intelligence gathered by all the units on the battlefield. This gives you a TITANIC advantage over an enemy force. It allows the elimination of virutally all of the fog of war and allows you to make the enemy's fog much thicker. You can better manage where to put your forces or drop ordinance to generate maximum effect. With china having their own space access and their own sattelite network,i doubt the US's advantage in that area will be significant,and the main proof of that is that in all the wars they've gone into,none of the armies they faced posed a challenge in that area to begin with...The real test of network centric battles will be when they may face a force that also has that as well,and so far,it hasn't happened. Basically,the US has picked much softer targets on all it's previous wars to begin with,wich were using by and large military equipement that goes back 30~40 years ago,and in a situation like that,that network centric technique is a huge advantage,even when outnumbered... Quote: Thats why the U.S. will pump 2 billion dollars to create a stealth bomber that damage wise is less powerful than a B52. What is are the targets for the most expensive military aircraft ever invented? Missle launchers? Bunkers? Runways? Factories? Nope...its targets are Communications towers, Power plants and radar stations. It is designed to use its stealth to make all the other non stealthy military units...stealthy. They are the first in and their job is to turn the lights out. All your sam batteries, migs, tanks, soldiers are shooting with blindfolds on. But they will run out of bullets and fuel soon because the second target is the logistic chain. I know about the B2 as well as the F117,wich despite being a huge success in the first Iraq war,both are succeptible to long wave radar systems...The main thing to remember is that it usually takes a good 15 years to develop a new state of the art plane,and in that time,radar/sonar/satellite and infrared detection systems also evolve at a very nice pace,especially for the more industrialised nations having a high tech sector in military equipement. It's the main reason why the F117 is no longer in service in fact...The latest generation of radar systems can detect it's presence,making it useless,and the same will happen with the B2 and even the F22 Raptor....In fact,the eurofighter consortium already have next generation detection systems in development(look for CEASAR) that can detect an F22 at 35 miles away....That particular system will find it's way into the eurofighter typhoon once it's development is done.
Mudkest MetaForge Ekliptika	Posted - 2007.11.25 19:47:00 - [89] Originally by: Sereifex Daku To be fair, America hasn't 'won' a war in a long time because the rules of war has changed immensely over the past one or two centuries. It started when we stopped keeping the land we conquered, instead giving it back. That's the way I see it, anyway. and that's why a massivly expensive and high-tech army doesnt qualify for best. Originally by: Mtthias Clemi Did you not read what i just wrote? not when I posted no :) Anyway, reason theye were fighting in Russia during winter was because Russia was not prepared for the war, and got pushed back a lot, winter sat in early and **** launched his attack too late. By the time winter was over Russia had its war industry fired up and even had the Us not entered forcing **** to fight on 2 fronts, I doubt Germany would have been able to stop Russia at that point. By the time the US entered, most of Germanys forces were allready tied up at the east front. maybe Russia would have lost without the US, but the Allied forces COULD not have won without Russia. ----- GIEV custom ship paint jobs! I want my hello-kitty-kessie! For your safety do not destroy vital testing apparatus
Groes Thir Gallente Karjala Inc. Onnenpyora	Posted - 2007.11.25 21:03:00 - [90] Originally by: Cipher7 US weapon technology Israeli street smarts Russian vodka Chinese manpower Finnis

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.