EVE Search - Best Military in the World?

Check My IP Information

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)
Krows	Posted - 2007.11.26 02:42:00 - [121] Originally by: Xen Gin And just remember folks, if you're not in a war from the beginning, you don't count! Also I believe the UK finished its payments to the US last year or the year before. I'm sure the equipment and pilots the U.S. sent before officially entering the war never counted either. This thread will choke on nationalism in the end, smother it with a pillow before it happens. What I say here... does not reflect on my corp or alliance.
benzss Templar Securities and Holdings Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.11.26 04:21:00 - [122] btw, the UK's navy is the 2nd biggest in the world. Yeah, it surprised me too.
Cipher7 VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.26 04:21:00 - [123] The Germans didn't get through the Maginot Line, they went AROUND it, through Belgium. German troops drugged on amphetamines made for Paris at a forced march with most of the French Army sitting at the border. A scrambled defense proved ineffective, with 120,000 French troops killed in a matter of weeks trying to stop the German advance. Think about this for a second. 120,000 young men in the prime of their lives. How many did we lose in Iraq in 2 years, 3000? Imagine if we lost 120,000 troops in 3 weeks. In actual combat, not stepping on mines or accidents. No, the French definitely are not cowards. I find alot of their cultural aspects bizarre. They seem to be a bunch of militant socialist foodies.
Xen Gin The Dragoons	Posted - 2007.11.26 05:01:00 - [124] Originally by: Indoril Siconus Quote: An I has a P90, with triple rail, assault scope, laser pointer and a whole load of bullpub shooting goodness :) Too bad you wont be able to hit anything more than 10 feet away Yeah, but anything closer and its mine! Unless I switch to semi-auto mode. does evil chin stroke!
Cipher7 VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.26 05:21:00 - [125] Originally by: Mudkest 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... Kinda hard to "win" when we just give the country back to its occupants. How do you win a war in the 21st Century? Are we supposed to exterminate our opponents?
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.26 05:41:00 - [126] Originally by: Cipher7 No, the French definitely are not cowards. I find alot of their cultural aspects bizarre. Maybe not cowards but two words: Vichy Regime Nuff said. Let's look at the OP this way: Air Force: United States (Israel has arguably better pilots but they fly American made planes and are fewer and American pilots are quite good just the same) Army: 1-to-1 hard to say. British, American, German and Israeli troops are all highly trained and well equipped and motivated. Chinese and Russians have numbers and quantity does have a quality all its own (Stalin). Nod to the Finnish here as I think they are all born snipers. Navy: Bar none the United States wins here. 1-to-1 the British would hold their own fine but the US navy is as professional as they come and by far the largest in the world by a long shot (unless you count a lot of rusting Russian ships). Spec Ops: Hard to say. SAS, SEALS and so on from various countries are all bad ass and at the top of their game. I might give a nod here to Israeli spec ops since I think they get more actual field experience but I am not sure since so much of what they all doo is secret. Leaders: Israel probably. Not up on their current generals but the ones they had were ace. Most western countries and Russia will have very sharp generals (General Norman Schwarzkopf may not have looked it but he was quite literally a brilliant man bodering on genius). Hard to call without actually having them face off and see who wins. Logistics: United States hands down. Almost no other country in the world can project power much beyond their borders. Even the British had trouble dealing with the Falklands. For all China's size they are nowhere near being able to pull off a sealift to invade Taiwan. Put it all together and the US definitely has the most potent military in the world today without question. That does not mean a platoon of Challenger tanks couldn't wax a platoon of Abrams tanks but at the end of the day the US will likely hold the field.
Keorythe Caldari Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.26 07:41:00 - [127] Just want to point out to some of the tech fanboi's out there some obvious points. First of all, technology is a great equalizer against larger numbers. But it has its limitations and can still be overrun by sheer numbers. Someone mentioned the Panzer vs. Sherman and that is a perfect example. In other words you can't rely on technology alone and have to have some decent numbers of your own. Second, logistics and sustainability are probably the most important aspect of any military. It doesn't matter how well trained or how high tech an army. If they can't feed their people, maintain their equipment from wear or damage, and can't sustain losses then they aren't that great of an army. An example is most of the EU nations. Most have extremely good tech such as the Leopard tank or the Eurofighter. However, beyond patrol of their own territories most of those countries cannot replenish losses or sustain a combat ready maintenance schedule for very long. The UK have the largest logistical abilities but even they are easily taxed thanks to many of their recent military cutbacks. I believe their Navy has been hit the hardest but would appreciate if a brit sailor would confirm that. Finally there is funding for flexibility. As with any war tactics change and become fluid. Successful armies need the money to adapt to new technologies and tactics. Some of this can be done with current means but often it means developing new technologies of your own. This requires access to additional funding beyond estimated war budgets. Two examples are fighter planes during WWII and the military vehicles in Iraq. Both Axis and Allies developed a slew of more advanced fighter planes over a 5yr period. By the end the Germans were working with jets and the Americans were introducing the funky looking Corsair. In Iraq the personal transports were originally just heavy duty jeeps, usually with no doors for easy dismounting. Enter the remote detonated roadside bomb. Now they are heavily plated and turreted APC's (armor personel carrier). We wont even get into bomb defusal or detonation advances. Maybe this will shed a bit more light on combat readiness for the noobies. p.s.- special forces are not front line soldiers nor contribute much to a standard firefight let alone attempt to sustain one. Engaging an enemy unit is usually the last thing they want to do unless dictated by their mission. SEALs, SAS, Spetznaz, etc have all had their fair share of units being attacked by conventional armies and killed to a man. Lets not kid ourselves here, special forces are specialists that do special jobs and thats it. 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
Thorliaron	Posted - 2007.11.26 11:06:00 - [128] Originally by: Keorythe Just want to point out to some of the tech fanboi's out there some obvious points. First of all, technology is a great equalizer against larger numbers. But it has its limitations and can still be overrun by sheer numbers. Someone mentioned the Panzer vs. Sherman and that is a perfect example. In other words you can't rely on technology alone and have to have some decent numbers of your own. Second, logistics and sustainability are probably the most important aspect of any military. It doesn't matter how well trained or how high tech an army. If they can't feed their people, maintain their equipment from wear or damage, and can't sustain losses then they aren't that great of an army. An example is most of the EU nations. Most have extremely good tech such as the Leopard tank or the Eurofighter. However, beyond patrol of their own territories most of those countries cannot replenish losses or sustain a combat ready maintenance schedule for very long. The UK have the largest logistical abilities but even they are easily taxed thanks to many of their recent military cutbacks. I believe their Navy has been hit the hardest but would appreciate if a brit sailor would confirm that. Finally there is funding for flexibility. As with any war tactics change and become fluid. Successful armies need the money to adapt to new technologies and tactics. Some of this can be done with current means but often it means developing new technologies of your own. This requires access to additional funding beyond estimated war budgets. Two examples are fighter planes during WWII and the military vehicles in Iraq. Both Axis and Allies developed a slew of more advanced fighter planes over a 5yr period. By the end the Germans were working with jets and the Americans were introducing the funky looking Corsair. In Iraq the personal transports were originally just heavy duty jeeps, usually with no doors for easy dismounting. Enter the remote detonated roadside bomb. Now they are heavily plated and turreted APC's (armor personel carrier). We wont even get into bomb defusal or detonation advances. Maybe this will shed a bit more light on combat readiness for the noobies. p.s.- special forces are not front line soldiers nor contribute much to a standard firefight let alone attempt to sustain one. Engaging an enemy unit is usually the last thing they want to do unless dictated by their mission. SEALs, SAS, Spetznaz, etc have all had their fair share of units being attacked by conventional armies and killed to a man. Lets not kid ourselves here, special forces are specialists that do special jobs and thats it. I think labour have scrapped 56 ships and only replaced them with 8 new ones, ofcourse the Brown govenment is a joke and is getting a battering, they gave a bank x2 the money they give our lads who are out in places doing their stuff because thats what the fat cats of westminster want.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.26 13:38:00 - [129] Edited by: Sokratesz on 26/11/2007 13:39:26 I think Israel is the most modernized as it stands currently, however their total personnel is of course negligble when it compares to the big lads like USA, China, Russia, Germany etc. In this post-cold-war era its more the specialist types of combat units that are useful.. That said, anyone egoboasting about this kind of thing needs to be ridiculed beyond imagination. Kind of like e-peen stroking, but sadder. Sig removed for the third time, inappropriate content. Sig Locked. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Kala Veijo Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.11.26 14:07:00 - [130] Although these stats are old I still find them pretty amusing.

SoftRevolution	Posted - 2007.11.26 14:31:00 - [131] Are those for the Winter War? :D EVE RELATED CONTENT
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.26 14:57:00 - [132] Originally by: northwesten Originally by: Valan 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. Err? no I don't think so! UK finished paying their war debts off already -------------------------------------------- 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!
Spaced Skunk 9omH Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2007.11.26 15:09:00 - [133] Originally by: SoftRevolution Edited by: SoftRevolution on 25/11/2007 22:52:55 At least Call of Duty made a point of having Russians and Brits. Captain Price and his terrifying face hair was especially badass. The Russians Vs Germans, in a painfully hard simulation FPS Personally though I don't really care about the answer to the OP, each country has its military, each country has its good points and bad points. I am going to answer your question with the British troops, soon as UK has so much background. Also yes I am British. To Spawny, a great guy, a great laugh. Rest in peace buddy.
Valan The Fated Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.26 17:22:00 - [134] Originally by: Xen Gin And just remember folks, if you're not in a war from the beginning, you don't count! Also I believe the UK finished its payments to the US last year or the year before. Not disproving the point. When did we go into Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh about the same time the debt was paid off! The point is WW1 & 2 plus things like the Manhattan project were all joint efforts not just an American success. Unless you ask an American of course. /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 - 2007.11.26 18:23:00 - [135] Originally by: Mtthias Clemi Originally by: northwesten Originally by: Valan 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. Err? no I don't think so! UK finished paying their war debts off already IIRC the UK made its last payment to the US in December, 2006. That may seem like a long time to be paying the US but the Brits got awesome terms. They repaid something like $0.10 per actual dollar the US gave. Not a bad deal at all. The Brits could have paid off sooner but why would they? The money was far more useful in their banks than anything they may have saved paying off early.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.11.26 18:42:00 - [136] Originally by: Kala Veijo Although these stats are old I still find them pretty amusing. That is a great meme
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.26 18:49:00 - [137] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: Kala Veijo Although these stats are old I still find them pretty amusing. That is a great meme I think I mentioned it earlier but it bears repeating that I think Finns are all natural born snipers. Gave the Russians fits.
DarkMatter Sintered Sanity	Posted - 2007.11.26 18:51:00 - [138] I didn't read anything in this thread, I'm just wondering how it lasted 5 pages without getting locked... My Current Project
James Swindle Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:17:00 - [139] Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49 I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be.
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:19:00 - [140] Originally by: James Swindle Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49 I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be. They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers.

Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:26:00 - [141] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: James Swindle Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49 I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be. They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers. "Friendly" fire has gotten people in all wars from any country. Just happens (sadly).
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:32:00 - [142] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: James Swindle Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49 I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be. They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers. "Friendly" fire has gotten people in all wars from any country. Just happens (sadly). There is nothing friendly about dropping a couple 500lb bombs on a training exercise. Your pilots never called for confirmation of enemy activity, they just decided that the platoon of Canadian soldiers on the ground were a target of opportunity. This is what happens when people think war is a game, but moreover, when national fervor prevents rational thought.
DarkMatter Sintered Sanity	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:32:00 - [143] Edited by: DarkMatter on 26/11/2007 19:33:42 Quote: I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time I think if you were to look at the FF percentages, based on how many more missions & sorties the US military does compared to the Canadian or British forces, you'd see the friendly fire incidents fall within normal parameters, probably even below "normal", or at least below the FF incidents of previous wars... If we shot the wrong ppl HALF THE TIME, you "guys" (UK & CAN) would have no military left by now... Considering there will be no more territorial conquest wars as long as this current human civilization survives, we'll never truly get to compare... The days of heavyweights going toe to toe are long gone... No country in the Middle East is worth the USA fighting China or Russia over, it's just not going to happen... I read today, that Iraq is planning to make a deal with the US military to have us keep 50k troops there (I knew we would), pretty much indefinitely... That puts a crimp in Iran's style. But is Russia or China going to try to remove us from Iraq because Iran doesn't like it? LOL... Sure... All those years of US & Russian pilots training to kill one another, and they will never get the chance... What a shame... Would have been a nice challenge for my country... Oh, and smaller, faster, less overhead is ALWAYS better, no matter what you're trying to organize... That's a no brainer. My Current Project
Derovius Vaden	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:37:00 - [144] Originally by: DarkMatter ...Fox News inspired drivel... All hail the glorious leader Hillary/Obama/Whoever the ****?
DarkMatter Sintered Sanity	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:40:00 - [145] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: DarkMatter ...Fox News inspired drivel... All hail the glorious leader Hillary/Obama/Whoever the ****? I certainly hope it's not Hillary... My Current Project
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.11.26 19:41:00 - [146] Originally by: Derovius Vaden There is nothing friendly about dropping a couple 500lb bombs on a training exercise. Your pilots never called for confirmation of enemy activity, they just decided that the platoon of Canadian soldiers on the ground were a target of opportunity. This is what happens when people think war is a game, but moreover, when national fervor prevents rational thought. You know as well as I do that "friendly" in this case means you are shooting people who are considered your friends and not that bombing them is a friendly act. As for the circumstances if the pilot(s) were just some yahoos that ignored procedure then they will likely be thrown in jail...certainly a dishonorable discharge at the least (that is pretty bad thing here). These things happen in war and we both know it. I bet if you looked in to it you'd find ample examples of British soldiers killing other British soldiers accidentally. These things happen when have tens of thousands of people with guns running about. And as mentioned above I am willing to bet with better communication and procedures these days friendly fire incidents are likely fewer than they have been in previous wars. This is not to say we should be "ok" with such things happening but we should not be surprised.
ry ry StateCorp	Posted - 2007.11.26 21:01:00 - [147] untill relatively recentl, america had kille dmore british soldiers in iraq than the iraqis had. go team america! 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
hattifnatt Gallente The Movement	Posted - 2007.11.26 21:03:00 - [148] Originally by: ry ry untill relatively recentl, america had kille dmore british soldiers in iraq than the iraqis had. go team america! **** YEAH! i suxz at grammar, k?
Battleclash	Posted - 2007.11.26 21:32:00 - [149] Originally by: Derovius Vaden Originally by: James Swindle Edited by: James Swindle on 26/11/2007 19:17:49 I would post a nice and long informed post, but i just really can't be bothered at the moment. However, anyone who thinks the USA has the best millitary is just wrong. I mean they can't even shoot the right people half the time. There has been several occasions in the Irag war alone (without mentioning other) when British service men and women have been shot by their US allies. Just goes to show how good their training must be. They've also bombed and shot Canadian troops as well. The simple fact of it is that the smaller armed forces are more likely, statistically, to shoot the larger armed forces. I cannot think of a single instance where the Canadian armed forces (be they land, air or naval) have shot another coalition soldier or soldiers. The British were an accident. The canadians were just target pratice. Originally by: Vladimir Ilych Stupidity is universal.
pwnedgato	Posted - 2007.11.26 22:46:00 - [150] A lot of it is poor cooperation between the forces of the coalition. The American IVIS systems aren't linked to any similar systems of other countries. Also part of it is Army training the Army trains soldiers to simply fire on targets. (When training men on how to shoot they only use pop-ups. because this is said to limit the thinking troops do thus preventing them from considering the act of killing) While many other militaries (and the Marines) train on known distance ranges. I'd like a real sig feel free to share ideas on one.



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.