To even things up in terms of size. Each country could field a standard infantry division in the light role to a series of engagements in different environments: desert, arctic, woodland and fibua. Who would be the best? (No arty or air support)
2007-01-08 03:22:35 · 29 answers · asked by sid 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To those of you saying USA, I'm sure you are just being patriotic. With no air support, no heavy armour, no artillery. Having to tab everywhere carrying all your own kit - I really can't see the US doing very well - just not tough enough or clever enough
2007-01-08 04:02:26 · update #1
As much as I hate them for what they did on Bloody SUnday I would have to say the Paras. These guys are essentially the criminal element of the British army, the terrorist element if you like. These guys would all be serving time if it wasn't for the army. On the battlefield with no technology, air or artillery support to rely on these guys would kick *** out of any US or Israeli force. They are a typical die hard unit with a shoot first and ask questions later attitude!
2007-01-09 00:13:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the US if the US is not the best. However I believe they are some of the best.
It would be a tossup between three countries forces
Britain
Israel
USA
Even when you take away the support (Arty and air) and everything else and just make it a soldier on soldier battle.
What defines making a soldier better than others is their training, discipline, integrity, and motivation
We train the way we want to fight. we fight how we are trained. Or to put it in the words of one of our great generals (I forgot wich one) "Training is Bloodless battles , and battles are bloody training."
The United States Soldier is one of the best trained and motivated soldiers in the world. We spend huge amounts of money to have our men and women to be constantly training. and to have the best equipment we can provide. on top of that our troops are highly motivated, and have a sense of honor and integrity found in few other places around the world.
Yes there are occasionally some bad eggs like Abu Ghraib or Haditha. but you must understand. those are the exceptions, not the rule. Liberal media will play up the few horrible things commited by a small handful and try to portray that as the typical. The same liberal media who will NOT report stories on all the good things our soldiers do.
Nothing illustrates better the differences between our troops and those of the insurgents as a cartoon I once saw.
It depicts two men, one a US Soldier, the other an insurgent facing off against each other.
The insurgent is hunkered down behind an arab woman and child, using them not only as a physical shield but as an emotional shield knowing that our men will be reluctant to fire with the woman and child in danger.
Our Soldier on the otherhand also has a Woman and child with him. the difference is that he is using his own body as a shield to protect the woman and child. even as he is twice placing his own life in danger, by shielding the woman and child and by avoiding firing at the other woman and child even as the insurgent is taking aim.
The reason we seem to be losing in places like Iraq. It is NOT because of any great ability of the insurgents and terrorists. or a lack of ability on our part.
It is OUR OWN self restraint. Our fighting with kid gloves to not hurt innocents around us. Yes sometimes they still get hurt anyway. mistakes happen. errors in judgement. But for the most part our soldier fight with restraint and put their own lives in danger to avoid innocent casualties.
If our troops were to really start acting like the media tries to portray them... God help anyone we come up against.
You add back in all the technology. our air support and battlefield artillery. and the US soldier is THE best in the world. Without it they are still in the top three and perhaps still the best.
Now many are just going to dismiss me as being patriotic. and yes I am. But patriotism aside, this is still the truth.
Source(s):
USN Vet
Brother of US Army Vet
Son of US Army Vet
Nephew of USN Vet
Grandson of US Army WWII Hero
(He and one other man came back from a suicide mission in the Italian Alps, Both wounded and him carrying the other.)
18 hours ago - Report Abuse
2007-01-09 08:06:52 · answer #2 · answered by Callum s 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While yes I am Patriotic. I am not blindly patriotic. I will not choose the US if the US is not the best. However I believe they are some of the best.
It would be a tossup between three countries forces
Britain
Israel
USA
Even when you take away the support (Arty and air) and everything else and just make it a soldier on soldier battle.
What defines making a soldier better than others is their training, discipline, integrity, and motivation
We train the way we want to fight. we fight how we are trained. Or to put it in the words of one of our great generals (I forgot wich one) "Training is Bloodless battles , and battles are bloody training."
The United States Soldier is one of the best trained and motivated soldiers in the world. We spend huge amounts of money to have our men and women to be constantly training. and to have the best equipment we can provide. on top of that our troops are highly motivated, and have a sense of honor and integrity found in few other places around the world.
Yes there are occasionally some bad eggs like Abu Ghraib or Haditha. but you must understand. those are the exceptions, not the rule. Liberal media will play up the few horrible things commited by a small handful and try to portray that as the typical. The same liberal media who will NOT report stories on all the good things our soldiers do.
Nothing illustrates better the differences between our troops and those of the insurgents as a cartoon I once saw.
It depicts two men, one a US Soldier, the other an insurgent facing off against each other.
The insurgent is hunkered down behind an arab woman and child, using them not only as a physical shield but as an emotional shield knowing that our men will be reluctant to fire with the woman and child in danger.
Our Soldier on the otherhand also has a Woman and child with him. the difference is that he is using his own body as a shield to protect the woman and child. even as he is twice placing his own life in danger, by shielding the woman and child and by avoiding firing at the other woman and child even as the insurgent is taking aim.
The reason we seem to be losing in places like Iraq. It is NOT because of any great ability of the insurgents and terrorists. or a lack of ability on our part.
It is OUR OWN self restraint. Our fighting with kid gloves to not hurt innocents around us. Yes sometimes they still get hurt anyway. mistakes happen. errors in judgement. But for the most part our soldier fight with restraint and put their own lives in danger to avoid innocent casualties.
If our troops were to really start acting like the media tries to portray them... God help anyone we come up against.
You add back in all the technology. our air support and battlefield artillery. and the US soldier is THE best in the world. Without it they are still in the top three and perhaps still the best.
Now many are just going to dismiss me as being patriotic. and yes I am. But patriotism aside, this is still the truth.
2007-01-08 13:51:25 · answer #3 · answered by CG-23 Sailor 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well its definately a british regiment. If its just standard regiments then its a toss up between the Paras and the Scots Guard.
If your involving special forces aswell its the SAS or SBS. Both are very similar. Both are trained to fight exactly as you have described, no artillary no air support infact no support at all and in any condition on earth.
All you people saying america are having a laugh. I wonder what would happen if you ever got in this situation................oh wait i already know, give the SAS a call
2007-01-08 20:31:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Its a bit vague,
Different countries would develop a different doctrine depending on how they expect their infantry to be employed in any conflict.
For instance irish infantry would be a defensive,german infantry doctrine in WWII would have a much more offensive doctrine.
Personally i think the best assault size infantry unit are the russian spetznaz,
SAS and all these guys?forget it.
And definately not british,those guys cant even walk properly.
2007-01-08 13:50:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No air or artillery assistance.
I would have to go with the Russian special forces - Spetsnazs
2007-01-08 19:05:02 · answer #6 · answered by Indian Joe 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Left to just men and standard equipment, it would have to be the British Armed forces, the training, the discipline, and determination of our forces would overcome the others, not only that they have been trained in many of those conditions as well as Arctic, if it was televised I would watch it, bit like a violent it's a knockout.
2007-01-08 11:40:02 · answer #7 · answered by Dumbledore 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I would have to say the Israelis, they have more combat experience well motivated and are used to fighting in all forms of combat. But in a full combined arms attack the US would dominate any foe in the world today.
Also I don't want to hear anything about the British Militray, the Germans would steamroll you like they did in WWI and WWII
2007-01-08 11:28:20 · answer #8 · answered by crazyhorse19682003 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
the UN do surveys of amrys from around the world.and the UK come out top all the time.best frighting men and women in the world bar no one.
2007-01-08 11:45:24 · answer #9 · answered by peter o 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Uk by far .. best trainned soilders in the world besides we have the commandos,paras and special forces need i say any more oh and we have the best divers not that i am biased or anything
2007-01-08 12:11:49 · answer #10 · answered by sammie 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋