Not only are you in dagner, you may also be in danger!!

Originally Posted by gjc

BAOR? The Fulda Gap? 3rd Shock Army? My dear Doppleganger, you are in dnager of showing your age!!

LOL


Would love to hear more on this subject sir, on the Fulda gap and cold war issue's......that is something that does not get allot attention on this forum hehe.

BAOR? The Fulda Gap? 3rd Shock Army? My dear Doppleganger, you are in dnager of showing your age!!

haha

I'm not *that* old!

Would love to hear more on this subject sir, on the Fulda gap and cold war issue's......that is something that does not get allot attention on this forum hehe.

Well I only brought it up to illustrate a point. Just as well we didn't get the 3rd Shock Army rumbling through there or we'd all be eating cabbages and drinking cheap vodka in the UK. Mind you some of us do that already

I don't think NATO forces could have withstood a Soviet invasion of West Germany without using tactical nuclear strikes..

That is what I have heard......but I am glad that the British are there to help when they can. Much respect for your armed forces mate.

They would have had no choice. Soviet plans 'obtained' by NATO when they took over control of East Germany showed that any attack by the Warsaw Pact on West Germany would have been preceeded by a massive tactical nuclear strike. Scary to think how close we really came!!

They would have had no choice. Soviet plans 'obtained' by NATO when they took over control of East Germany showed that any attack by the Warsaw Pact on West Germany would have been preceeded by a massive tactical nuclear strike. Scary to think how close we really came!!

Guess that should come as no surprise as it's exactly what they did in WW2. i.e. massive artillery bombardments proceeding any offensive.

Actually I think there's more danger of nukes being set off today by terrorists or a 'rogue' state than ever there was during the Cold War.

i have read an interesting book (the name is HOW TO MAKE WAR, byJames F. Dunnigan) it shows how militaries of the world match up and who has the best one based on quality(training,equipment,experience,etc.) and quantity. The countries were then assigned a numeric grade on military strength(this was written in 2003)and here is a list of the top guns


USA-2,488pts
China-827pts
Israel-617pts
Russia-369pts
South Korea-289pts
North Korea-274pts
UK-259pts
Turkey-240pts
Pakistan-235pts


i dont mean to say anything bad about Britian(they did make the list after all) it is just they have the quality just not the quantity.... and when it comes to Marines and Army you guys are good..... but i believe the USA is the best..... we just have better training and equipment.... but i guess that is why we are allies


another interesting thing(a little off topic) is how much power russia still has even after the Cold War

better training and equipment

I'd say you have MORE equipment. Most of our (army's) equipment is on a par with yours with a few new aquirements of ours being slightly better, and a couple of older pieces of kit being slightly (bordering on much) worse.

As for the training remark I would seriously have to disagree. I don't mean this maliciously, but the American soldiers are not held in high regard over here. It's not their fault, the American mentality seems to be that they can win a conflict by throwing more man power and money at it than the enemy can. This is reflected in the style and level of training that Americans recieve. As was quoted before, they can't "think outside the box" (I hate that phrase, it's too much like management jargon). A British soldier however HAS to be able to, as they have to be capable of many jobs without relying on a specialist unit to do it for them.

I don't mean to offend anyone by highlighting the following, but if you look at the recent conflicts we have fought together the differences become apparent.
In Afghanistan four Brittish SBS soldiers were awarded the highest American decoration for rescuing a company of rangers who were pinned down by the taliban. I'm not sure of the exact details of this, such as the lay of the ground etc. but four British special forces soldiers rescuing a company of American special forces is a big deal no matter how you look at it.
Looking at Iraq, how much trouble have you heard of in Basra when compare to the American AoR? (I am aware that the Americen AoR is considerably bigger)
Also the American's reputation for friendly fire is apalling, even with their gucci FFI equipment.

I really don't mean to sound aggressive or like I'm gloating, it's not the soldier's fault, it's the mentality of their forces which is left over from the cold war era.

USA-2,488pts
China-827pts
Israel-617pts
Russia-369pts
South Korea-289pts
North Korea-274pts
UK-259pts
Turkey-240pts
Pakistan-235pts

As for this, I know that at least the top 3 have well over a million in their forces, our army is 100,000 strong, what else gives us the points to be in the top 7?

Originally Posted by TacticalEdge

we just have better training and equipment are

I agree to JEA
there are many of really well trained and equipped guys
but the US just have the money to hav lots of them.
OK maybe Im a bit patriotic, but i think that our army is as good trained as the US......
and we proved that in not few manouvers...

Originally Posted by TacticalEdge

another interesting thing(a little off topic) is how much power russia still has even after the Cold War

i dont if its accurate but according to http://www.aneki.com/nuclear.html

Rank Country Number of warheads
1 Russia 28,240
2 United States 12,070
3 France 510
4 China 425
5 United Kingdom 400
6 Israel uncertain
7 India uncertain
8 Pakistan uncertain