The most effective/efficient modern army?

[Ferdinand Foch]

Did I miss something?

Well, if you want my opinion Lucky, I think somebody's making a concise statement without checking the research first.


Personally, I would have to say the U.S. Military. Not just becuase I'm American, but because we have the largest professional army in the world. There are plenty of other nations out there with far larger armies-i.e. China- but they cannot compete with the U.S. in terms of technological advancement. A lot of Western Allies are also technologically advanced-like Canada, Great Britain, France, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, etc.- but they do not have the numbers like the United States does. That's my general statement, anyway.

That being said, I have nothing but respect to the militaries of our allies. Each army is rich in tradition and history, and shows that tradition to this day. Even though that I believe that we have the most efficient modern army in the world, I do feel a lot better knowing that a lot of Western armies are out with us on the field, whether it be the Royal Marines, the PPCLL, the ADF or the NZDF, the IDF, and the even the French-the Foreign Legion, the Chasseur Alpins, and the French paratroopers notwithstanding.
Heck, I even told a friend of mine when she said that America's foreign policy is losing friends of our worldwide that's making it us go it alone, I said that as long as we have England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., then that's all the Allies will ever need.

Ok, that was my rant for the night. Feel free to commen and/or criticize.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Ok, who spiked the Kool Aid??????

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... The simple fact is the US military is the most efficient and finest fighting force the world has ever seen."



Roman Legions at their finest would give your views a run.

MM

 

[Lucky13]

....and maybe the Spartans!

Question though.....

Can an army, any nations army here, become too technologically dependent?

 

[parsifal]

Ive served alongside British, Canadian, New Zealanders ,US, British, PNG and Indonesian forces. With the exception of the Indonesians I have no problems serving alongside of any of them. If there are any differences, they are minute,

However, for me, the best soldiers in the world, only from what I have read, would have to be the Gurkhas. These plucky little guys would fight till they are all dead, and never flinch. Handy guys to have around IMO

 

[mikewint]

OK, my opinion is obvious, no nations armed forces can stand for long against the US. we have the best equipted trained and motivated soldiers in the world backed by a massive manufacturing and tecnology capability. Obviously sheer massed numbers count. it would be difficult to stand against the Chinese or N. Koreans on the ground using conventional weapons. I've experienced a few "human wave" assaults and they are VERY difficult to stop.
Lucky13, to answer your question, Yes. look at the Germans in WWII. their tanks took out the shermans 10:1 and sometimes more but for every tiger they made we made 30 shermans.
the only thing the US armed forces cannot withstand are the gutless politicians at home and our own news media. imagine walter cronkite reporting the "battle of the bulge" in the same manner he reported Tet in vietnam

 

[Loiner]

We often hear that the British Army is the best trained in the world (whether it's true or not I couldn't say) but they certainly aren't the best equiped. The prolonged service in the middle east has produced a whole host of tales of British servicemen having to beg ,borrow or buy essential equipment, even the welfare facilities and rations have been reportedly looked on the US in envy. As for small arms, not sure if the SA80 is the best rifle but I suppose compares reasonably well with the M4, and most western countries have a form of the FN SAW and GPMG.

I voted for IDF, as I think their experience and motivation of fighting for survival over the past half century has honed them into a very effective if fairly low budget fighting force. Not sure how their new Tavor matches up against the M16/M4 or if they are all being replaced, but with their experience they should know what's best for them. For big kit, they also have amongst the best armour in the world with their Merkavas, and they went straight in for the Apache atack helicopters - good choice. I also like the way the upgrade old kit like old M113s and M60s into far more effective new armoured vehicles, excellant intiative and resourcefulnes.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was thinking of this thread for quite some time and I decided to look back on my experiences in the US Army and I have decided that the US military is not the most efficient in the world. Of course this goes against what I said earlier.

Why?

No military of that size can be efficient. When I think of the logistics and what goes into sustaining (including what is wasted by the military) then it certainly can not be the most efficient. This goes for any military this size however.

I still stand by my opinion that the US military is the most effective however. It simply is the most powerful, advanced and capable military in the world. I believe in this because the US military in my opinion is the best trained and best led (especially in the NCO corps). Also the combined capabilities of the joint services (Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force) make it the most effective.

 

[mikewint]

Eagle, i suppose that depends on the meaning of efficiency. armed fores destroy materiel their own and the enemies. in one sense that is their job. in some cases the ratio is important in others, not so much IF the destroyed material is replaced at the same rate or better. consider the german tigers vs the sherman
soldiers can also be considered in the same light. in vietnam US losses were 58,000+ while the NVA have recently admitted that their losses were 2 Million+. almost 35:1. now if we are talking about soldiers used as cannon fodder they had better not be your best and most trained. consider japan and germany in term of trained pilots and tankers as the war neared its end.
in short i not so sure in what context to take the term efficient except in terms of the end result which is simple: no nation can stand against the US military

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Eagle, i suppose that depends on the meaning of efficiency. armed fores destroy materiel their own and the enemies. in one sense that is their job. in some cases the ratio is important in others, not so much IF the destroyed material is replaced at the same rate or better. consider the german tigers vs the sherman
soldiers can also be considered in the same light. in vietnam US losses were 58,000+ while the NVA have recently admitted that their losses were 2 Million+. almost 35:1. now if we are talking about soldiers used as cannon fodder they had better not be your best and most trained. consider japan and germany in term of trained pilots and tankers as the war neared its end.
in short i not so sure in what context to take the term efficient except in terms of the end result which is simple: no nation can stand against the US military

We are both looking at efficiency as something totally different. As I already stated, the US military is the most effective. Most effective does not always mean most efficient. The money, manpower and supplies are not always used best or in the most efficient manner by the US military. That is fact...

 

[parsifal]

I see the US military as having strengths and weaknesses, like any mililtary organization. Towards the end of WWII, it developed what is known as the "unit principle" which allows task groups to be formwed for a particular task as t hand. This gave the US army great flexibility in tailoring its force structure to a particular purpose. However, the concept pre-supposes that the military are trained with precise uniformity....that personnel unused to working with another unit will immediately know how that unit will react, because the training tells them that their new buddies will react in a certain way. This does not always work that way. Training and efficiency in the US army is not always uniform, and units behave differently in a given situation. This has a tendency to to affect esprit de Corps and makes people somewahat cautious because they dont exactly know how thir colleagues are going to react.

There are two things that I see as very important in modern military, and one of those qualioties is as old as dust. The first one, which the US does better than just about anybody, is adapt...The US can tailor their force structures, embrace new ideas, technology and new situations, better than just about anybody. Conversely, the US dont work as well as some in team building and working so closely with other units that the reactions are almost instinctive. Parhaps things have chnged since I worked with them, but that at least was my observation of them from 25 years ago

 

[mikewint]

Eagle, OK agreed. your point is well taken. we did a LOT of humping up a hill to kill everything on the hill. then we heloed out leaving the hill to the very forces we just kicked out. not efficient in any sense.
Parsifal, second point well taken. any ORPLAN had to be signed off on by any one who might be involved. if the ORPLAN look promising everyone had to add his 2 cents so they could take credit if everything went well and interservice rivalry was unbelievable. at times over a month would pass before all parties were happy with the operation then layer in Saigon and Field Marshall Sulivan's political agenda
it's a wonder we're effictive at all