Who has the best army in the world?

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:37

Hitman_Leon said:
Ok well maybe you could ask my little brother like I did, his opinion was the same as I thought, and he was mech inf upto 2 years back. They would not like to tangle with SBS end of chat, especially the guys who were washing their underwear and shaving on the turret of his warrior while they were taking incomming from Iraqi and US forces in the op telic.

I was mechanized around the time the Warrior started to show its face, did it in the old 432s and the Warriors I can assure you. The SBS or SAS would never want to be on the receiving end of a mechanized assult nobody would its nasty. I don't need to take your brothers word I know what I would have been up against, no guess where I would rather be.

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:37

Hitman_Leon said:
The British forces would be beaten but at great cost and a large chunk of the US european based air force would be toast in minutes, its based in england you don't think the british would say ok take off and then come back and fight.

lol well they'd take off then do it!

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:38

Biohazard said:
I proposed 30 mins, going from your belief in the US forces, as a joke into which you agreed that to be a realistic timeframe for the annihilation of our forces.

So is it afternoon tea or a couple of weeks?

How many battle groups are you proposing on the US side again?

Tea for a couple of weeks, battle groups im not sure about. Lets say 2.

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:41

Hitman_Leon said:
The British forces would be beaten but at great cost and a large chunk of the US european based air force would be toast in minutes, its based in england you don't think the british would say ok take off and then come back and fight.

Its a what if so I say we put them in frances.

Ross1234 · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:41

Biohazard said:
lol well they'd take off then do it!

and land where?

Hitman_Leon · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:43

Orcish-Horde said:
I was mechanized around the time the Warrior started to show its face, did it in the old 432s and the Warriors I can assure you. The SBS or SAS would never want to be on the receiving end of a mechanized assult nobody would its nasty. I don't need to take your brothers word I know what I would have been up against, no guess where I would rather be.

I know where I would rather be also but the point I am getting accross is it would cost mech inf dear to go against an SF unit prepaired for them, or are you missing my point. What my brother says is they would be happier going face on with other mech inf than having to root out an SF unit. He put it like driving blind through a mine field rather than knowing what is coming and being able to move accordingly.

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:44

Orcish-Horde said:
Tea for a couple of weeks, battle groups im not sure about. Lets say 2.

That would round off quite nicely against our one Carrier based group and the other Amphibious Command group.

2 v 2 (or one and a half considering the ACG) on a CSG basis wouldn't be that hard, in fact we would have an advantage considering our land bases.

They would indeed probably wipe each other out, but what you propose would not kill us off. Far from it. (non nuclear at this point)

Hitman_Leon · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:46

Ross1234 said:
and land where?

It would be Italy or Germany I suppose if they could get off and get out of british airspace.

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:51

Hitman_Leon said:
I know where I would rather be also but the point I am getting accross is it would cost mech inf dear to go against an SF unit prepaired for them, or are you missing my point. What my brother says is they would be happier going face on with other mech inf than having to root out an SF unit. He put it like driving blind through a mine field rather than knowing what is coming and being able to move accordingly.

There would be a cost of that there is on doubt but it would not be on the scale your applying.

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:52

Orcish-Horde said:
There would be a cost of that there is on doubt but it would not be on the scale your applying.

What sort of cryptic answer is that?

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:55

Biohazard said:
That would round off quite nicely against our one Carrier based group and the other Amphibious Command group.

2 v 2 (or one and a half considering the ACG) on a CSG basis wouldn't be that hard, in fact we would have an advantage considering our land bases.

They would indeed probably wipe each other out, but what you propose would not kill us off. Far from it. (non nuclear at this point)

Till their next 2 groups come in then we send you out on a bodyboard to talk them to death.

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:56

Orcish-Horde said:
Till their next 2 groups come in then we send you out on a bodyboard to talk them to death.

**** that.

I can walk on water noob.

(although can you really see the US sending all 10 BG's to get us?)

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 20:59

Biohazard said:
What sort of cryptic answer is that?

I could get a job in politices, if you vote for me I will get them to aircraft carriers built in no time.

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:00

Biohazard said:
**** that.

I can walk on water noob.

(although can you really see the US sending all 10 BG's to get us?)

They have that many?

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:01

Orcish-Horde said:
They have that many?

iirc yes.

edit: Nope make that 11 Battle Groups, 10 based in the US the other based in Japan.

Orcish-Horde · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:09

So has the US the best army? I would say yes, my reasoning would be the shear scale of it which would give it the ability to take on any other nation.

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:12

Orcish-Horde said:
So has the US the best army? I would say yes, my reasoning would be the shear scale of it which would give it the ability to take on any other nation.

Take on each nation on its own yes, as a collective no. The best is another question, as it is not indicative of size.

It also requires the good will from other countries such as us and Germany to give it a footplate to project power from.

It would be different if this story started with all US forces back home.

Glaucus · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:16

Biohazard said:
Take on each nation on its own yes, as a collective no. The best is another question, as it is not indicative of size.

It also requires the good will from other countries such as us and Germany to give it a footplate to project power from.

It would be different if this story started with all US forces back home.

It wouldn't be any different, they have the most nukes, the most battle groups, the most ammunition. The most planes.
Which ever way you look at it usa armed forces as a whole are the best. If you look at individual units then no they aren't. But as a whole no one can touch them.

Biohazard · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:18

AcidHell2 said:
It wouldn't be any different, they have the most nukes, the most battle groups, the most ammunition. The most planes.
Which ever way you look at it usa armed forces as a whole are the best. If you look at individual units then no they aren't. But as a whole no one can touch them.

To compare the best, imo, you need to scale both down to the same size and then compare on different scenarios.

I agree with your thinking, its just my thinking on the best is different.

Big doesn't automatically equate to the best it could be.

Although there can be little arguing in the supremacy of the US forces.

pitchfork · 22 Jun 2008 at 21:59

The english.
All other armys are too reliant on weapons, us, we'll kick the enemy to death if we have to.