Worlds most powerful army? - [Closes 24/06/07]

[-Eyeless-]

To be fair it is not that easy to decide unless you had a battle royale or something like that, each army is better at different things, Like the israeli armys intelligence sector, and the british have "better Trained" soldiers and China has one of the largest armies so you would need to define what you think the meaning of "best" is in this debate before you could decide

[HotelUser]

America I would say. Certainly not England nor Canada lucky we arn't fighting America.

[mmhmm.]

Britain taught america evrything they know about war. when WWII came america was like WDH!?!?! AMGZ
they didnt know how to train troops britain taught them. but it was USSR

But now Britain/china

<history lesson>
during the world wars, america considered themselves isolationists. why involve themselves in european affairs? after pearl harbor, they entered wwii as you probably know. may i remind you that britain was pretty cornered by the germans at one point, especially after france fell. america wasn't like "WDH!?!?! AMGZ" once they entered. hesitant at first, yes. but pretty helpful once involved.
</history lesson>

& its funny how the fact that britain was the most powerful empire... in, what, the 1500s... keeps coming up. are we talking about present circumstances? if so, it really doesnt matter if britain was powerful centuries ago.

& its funny how people keep saying that britain taught the US and other countries what they know. um... these other countries have progressed from this and developed better techniques. surely you've heard of progress, right?

also, how do you measure tactical ability? i don't understand how you're coming up with some stuff.

am i the only girl here? :S

[BL!NKEY]

The fact remains, that even "unmanned" machines are not what make an army, but the fact that the people controlling them are.

But as we go into the future there will be less ground troops needing to be used by the technological advanced countries.

Maybe only one commander needs to be in-charge of monitoring 10 tanks-like-vechcles which would have taken 30 men actually in the vehicles now a days.

Having numbers is going to be less of an advantage as it is now.

Technology and money is the key.

Yes there will need to be more engineers to build the future unmanned vehicles but people are more willing to be engineers than fighting on the front line.

[Mentor]

<history lesson>
during the world wars, america considered themselves isolationists. why involve themselves in european affairs? after pearl harbor, they entered wwii as you probably know. may i remind you that britain was pretty cornered by the germans at one point, especially after france fell. america wasn't like "WDH!?!?! AMGZ" once they entered. hesitant at first, yes. but pretty helpful once involved.

Well in WW1 the war was pretty much over by the time the US entered, which was only becuse a U-boat sank one of there ships. Before that they were getting rich by selling to both sides.

And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/

</history lesson>

& its funny how the fact that britain was the most powerful empire... in, what, the 1500s... keeps coming up. are we talking about present circumstances? if so, it really doesnt matter if britain was powerful centuries ago.

You evidently failed history? the British empire was still around right up to WW2... Hardly centurys ago..

& its funny how people keep saying that britain taught the US and other countries what they know. um... these other countries have progressed from this and developed better techniques. surely you've heard of progress, right?

The british army remains one of the most highly trained in the world, so im sceptical of your use of the word "better"

also, how do you measure tactical ability? i don't understand how you're coming up with some stuff.

How well an army uses it resources to complete an objective, is the usual measure of how well its tactics are working. Americas track record is far from shineing on this front.

But as we go into the future there will be less ground troops needing to be used by the technological advanced countries.

Maybe only one commander needs to be in-charge of monitoring 10 tanks-like-vechcles which would have taken 30 men actually in the vehicles now a days.

Having numbers is going to be less of an advantage as it is now.

Technology and money is the key.

Yes there will need to be more engineers to build the future unmanned vehicles but people are more willing to be engineers than fighting on the front line.

This really depends on how advanced the military robots are expected to become, current technology's still require pilots whom control vecials by remote, rather than just monitor a machine that does everything automatically.
But as you rightly said, as technology progresses such militry robots will likely become a reality, although the man power behind them is still an important issue, since a highly skilled and educated work force would be key in createing, maintaing and inventing such devices. And budget isnt nessarly the main factor controling this, take china, it can spend alot less, yet get a far greater amount of highly skilled works on to a task, than the us could spending a great deal more.
The genral level of education within a countary and the costs of labor would all play an issue, if this were the case. Economic power and Military power would merge to some extent if this were to happen "/

[HabboIsKrouts]

Well in WW1 the war was pretty much over by the time the US entered, which was only becuse a U-boat sank one of there ships. Before that they were getting rich by selling to both sides.

And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/



You evidently failed history? the British empire was still around right up to WW2... Hardly centurys ago..


The british army remains one of the most highly trained in the world, so im sceptical of your use of the word "better"


How well an army uses it resources to complete an objective, is the usual measure of how well its tactics are working. Americas track record is far from shineing on this front.


This really depends on how advanced the military robots are expected to become, current technology's still require pilots whom control vecials by remote, rather than just monitor a machine that does everything automatically.
But as you rightly said, as technology progresses such militry robots will likely become a reality, although the man power behind them is still an important issue, since a highly skilled and educated work force would be key in createing, maintaing and inventing such devices. And budget isnt nessarly the main factor controling this, take china, it can spend alot less, yet get a far greater amount of highly skilled works on to a task, than the us could spending a great deal more.
The genral level of education within a countary and the costs of labor would all play an issue, if this were the case. Economic power and Military power would merge to some extent if this were to happen "/

This guy talks some proper sence, let that be a lesson too all of you, to some of those big headed yanks (not all just a small minority who think the world owes the U.S everything) America tried too take all the glory of both WW's, they did help, but they only came in for a short ammount of time unlike the british and french.

[HotelUser]

http://www.cylist.com/List/400300720/
Check that out.

[BL!NKEY]

And in WW2 russia was the bigger factor o.0 theres also alot of specuation it was americas fear of russia (and communism) that drove them to take alot of the decisive action they did in ww2 "/

Lol if America didn't get involved in WWII Hitler would have taken over all of europe.

America invaded Normandy and were able to fight the germans back. The of the cold winter helped the russians keep the germans from going east and taking over Russia. Russia almost had to surrender after being cornered in a city.

Then America was the main force against Japan to end the war. They battles on many islands to get close enough to mainland Japan and made the decision to drop the bomb. Russia might have had some impact on Americans decision to drop the bomb but that doesn't mean that Russia gets the credit for scaring the US into ending the war.

[Virgin Mary]

Lol if America didn't get involved in WWII Hitler would have taken over all of europe.

America invaded Normandy and were able to fight the germans back. The of the cold winter helped the russians keep the germans from going east and taking over Russia. Russia almost had to surrender after being cornered in a city.

Then America was the main force against Japan to end the war. They battles on many islands to get close enough to mainland Japan and made the decision to drop the bomb. Russia might have had some impact on Americans decision to drop the bomb but that doesn't mean that Russia gets the credit for scaring the US into ending the war.

Russia defeated Hitler, they got all the way into Berlin but Hitler committed suicide before they got there. By the time American finally decided to join in, Britain and France had already worn the Germans down anyway. There's a big difference between winning a war you've fought from the start and intervening at the last minute.

[BL!NKEY]

Russia defeated Hitler, they got all the way into Berlin but Hitler committed suicide before they got there. By the time American finally decided to join in, Britain and France had already worn the Germans down anyway. There's a big difference between winning a war you've fought from the start and intervening at the last minute.

Wearing the opponent down doesn't mean you won the war. The france built their maginot line and the Germans just went around it and invaded.

here is a quote from another forum about this

There can be absolutely no argument that America had an enormous impact on the outcome of WWII. Militarily the US beat Japan almost singlehandedly (with small but vital contributions by Australia, New Zealand and the UK).

In Europe their military impact is not so clear cut. It required the total combined effort of Commonwealth Forces and the American effort to defeat the Germans in the West. Mind you that combined effort would not have been enough if the Soviets had not so totally dominated the land war from '43 onwards. Certainly neither the Americans nor the Commonwealth could have defeated the Germans by themselves. It truly required an Allied effort to do so.

America's greatest single contribution was in the field of industrial capability. The US far outstripped the resources of the UK, German and Russia combined. America was a manufacturing dynamo, able to supply all it's own needs plus a considerable amount of both Britains and Russia's needs as well.

Without America's industrial power Europe today (in all likelihood) would be under the heel of the Communist Russia.

The US was able to keep Japan from joining the Axis earlier.