hardware-wise, in landwarefare no one beats US

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rocco

Active member
got a book listing the tanks /apc's/artilary etc... landforces + heli's a number of top nations have and USA has lots of top vehicles.
regardless of whats better e.g. merkava or abrams, or leclerc america has 6000 + M1's, whereas israel has about 1,300 merkavas, brits have less than 200 challengers and french have 122 leclercs... crazy stuff...
russia has much more tanks... but alot of them are T-55, T-72's which are obsolete against the top 6 of today... interesting book.
can see what different countries at conflict with one another have.

e.g. india has T-55's vs pakistans chinese replicant T-59's (replicants of T-55's)...

if we dont consider nukes... id say germany is a greater superpower than france as all its armor is new.

interesting book... only prob is doesnt go into details of ALL tanks, just majority, and doesnt really let you know the status of these tanks. e.g. M113's and M60's are labbeled as the same, so for a novice, it would seem one countries M60's are the same as anothers when one of them could have upgraded the vehicles...still interesting nonetheless
 
yes, the US is the best equipped landforce around the world. But i don't thinkl that's the determinative factor of a conflict/war. Just look into the Vietnam war. Were the US much much better equipped than the Vietnamese? Then what resulted?
 
rocco said:
got a book listing the tanks /apc's/artilary etc... landforces + heli's a number of top nations have and USA has lots of top vehicles.
regardless of whats better e.g. merkava or abrams, or leclerc america has 6000 + M1's, whereas israel has about 1,300 merkavas, brits have less than 200 challengers and french have 122 leclercs... crazy stuff...
russia has much more tanks... but alot of them are T-55, T-72's which are obsolete against the top 6 of today... interesting book.
can see what different countries at conflict with one another have.

e.g. india has T-55's vs pakistans chinese replicant T-59's (replicants of T-55's)...

if we dont consider nukes... id say germany is a greater superpower than france as all its armor is new.

interesting book... only prob is doesnt go into details of ALL tanks, just majority, and doesnt really let you know the status of these tanks. e.g. M113's and M60's are labbeled as the same, so for a novice, it would seem one countries M60's are the same as anothers when one of them could have upgraded the vehicles...still interesting nonetheless
Click to expand...


You mean the country with the best tank will win the whole war? If it was so simple then why not to develope a new super modern tank wich beats alone all M1s, Leo2s, leclercs, merkavas and others 100-0? No need for other branches, tactics etc.
 
Looking at armour is a very limited way to look at a nations warfare capacity, even ground war. Look at Australia. Despite having Leopards, M113's and ASLAV we are a strong fighting force, and have beaten the Americans in wargames in both the Mojave desert and here in Australia in Shoalwater bay. The Americans may have big numbers and technically superior equipment, but it doesn't equate to being best (not taking anything away from the US military, I have much respect, as they have beaten us just as well).

I has been claimed by military leaders, both US, Brit and Aussie that the Australian troops are the BEST equiped in Iraq, in regards to personal equipment and the vehicles we use (best equiped in their class since we didn't send MBT's). I use the example of Americans being forced to use scrap metal to up armour the Humvees. No such problem with the Australians (and don't anybody even dare say it's cos we don't do much over there).
 
truesight said:
yes, the US is the best equipped landforce around the world. But i don't thinkl that's the determinative factor of a conflict/war. Just look into the Vietnam war. Were the US much much better equipped than the Vietnamese? Then what resulted?
Click to expand...

Not so much an equipment issue as a tactics and doctrine issue. Large Armor formations that had trained to defend Fulda Gap against a Eastern Bloc threat in Europe were no good in SEA. That was a Light Infantry War.
And the US Military never lost a Major engagement to VC or the NVA.
 
rocco said:
got a book listing the tanks /apc's/artilary etc... landforces + heli's a number of top nations have and USA has lots of top vehicles.
regardless of whats better e.g. merkava or abrams, or leclerc america has 6000 + M1's, whereas israel has about 1,300 merkavas, brits have less than 200 challengers and french have 122 leclercs... crazy stuff...
russia has much more tanks... but alot of them are T-55, T-72's which are obsolete against the top 6 of today... interesting book.
can see what different countries at conflict with one another have.

e.g. india has T-55's vs pakistans chinese replicant T-59's (replicants of T-55's)...

if we dont consider nukes... id say germany is a greater superpower than france as all its armor is new.

interesting book... only prob is doesnt go into details of ALL tanks, just majority, and doesnt really let you know the status of these tanks. e.g. M113's and M60's are labbeled as the same, so for a novice, it would seem one countries M60's are the same as anothers when one of them could have upgraded the vehicles...still interesting nonetheless
Click to expand...

Does that book mention smaller countries? If the comparison is not just centered around the numbers?
 
truesight said:
i don't thinkl that's the determinative factor of a conflict/war. Just look into the Vietnam war. Were the US much much better equipped than the Vietnamese? Then what resulted?
Click to expand...


i totally agree with you, i made certain that no where in my thread did i claim that better equipment = better army... thats why my thread says "hardware wise", sorry if taken out of context... + hardware issue has been proven in the past in arab-israeli conflict...
 
yet this is the hardware area. and so technology is the topic not tactics. there is another category, where you can discuss tactics.

About Israel having 1300 merkavas, that data is probably growing incorect by the minute. as we know that new Merkavas are being made right now(Mk 4).And we know that the IDF just retired 800 Centurion tanks 2 years ago. What do you think replaced them? Id put Merkava noumbers at over 1500 and in a few years prbably at 3000+. Note that aside from that Israel has a huge fleet of improved M60s that are probably as good as the earlier Merkava models.
 
SHERMAN said:
About Israel having 1300 merkavas, that data is probably growing incorect by the minute.
Click to expand...

yeah its not up to date, id consider the information as a "Generalisation"
but the reason i got it is because it has lists for a number of countries.

US, UK, france, germany, greece, italy, spain, egypt, israel, syria, saudi, iraq, iran, russia, china, pakistan, india, indonesia, australia, brasil (maybe one i missed)

another problem with that sherman, is that we dont know what model of merkava they are. same goes for some other tanks... e.g. the 7000 of so M1, consider both M1a1 abd M1a2 in the same lot, same goes for all bradleys regardless of model/role and leaopard 1's etc.

but we can use our imagination :D

oh yeah, and another interesting thing is that the book shows what the armored brigades and mechanized brigades are made out of.
 
U.S army not only has one of the best equipments in the world..
but probably best training too,
and its high pays and other luxuries...(cigars, cokes, gums)...make morale very good

and most U.S soldiers believe tehy are fighting for their countyr's freedom..(I read Band of Brother a few times)

that means they are willing to fight..that is very invaluable in a war..
that is why 101 para 's boys can hold off 10 times of germans in Bastogne
 
PLAbuddy said:
U.S army not only has one of the best equipments in the world..
but probably best training too,
and its high pays and other luxuries...(cigars, cokes, gums)...make morale very good

and most U.S soldiers believe tehy are fighting for their countyr's freedom..(I read Band of Brother a few times)

that means they are willing to fight..that is very invaluable in a war..
that is why 101 para 's boys can hold off 10 times of germans in Bastogne
Click to expand...
Please dont start a "we are better INSERT than you!" conflict.

But just to post something, how long does a US army regular infatry man/woman train?
 
devilwasp said:
Please dont start a "we are better INSERT than you!" conflict.
quote]

wut do u mean by that?

i saw a film on discovery channel about the traing of marines,
a part of training is somethig like they have to be abandoned in an isolated place and see if they can survive sort of thing
Click to expand...
 
PLAbuddy said:
wut do u mean by that?
Click to expand...
It gets down to a "my dad can do something your dad cant" situation then it just gets worse.
i saw a film on discovery channel about the traing of marines,
a part of training is somethig like they have to be abandoned in an isolated place and see if they can survive sort of thing
Click to expand...
Yeah bet you never seen what a royal has to do though?
Look up royal marines, thats heavy.
But for standard guys in the british army 12 week basic training, then if you go infantry another 25 weeks of combat training at ATS catterick.
 
wut ur dad my dad?? i dont get it..

every strong nation's army is well-trained..

look at chinese marines, have to be dropped into an island with nearly no supply, eat snakes, drink urines...that is how they trained..
 
PLAbuddy said:
wut ur dad my dad?? i dont get it..
Click to expand...
Its a pointless arguement face it.
every strong nation's army is well-trained..

look at chinese marines, have to be dropped into an island with nearly no supply, eat snakes, drink urines...that is how they trained..
Click to expand...
The royal marines have to be comando's. They get taken to an island and told to survive with only thier 95's DPM's and thier own survival kit the size of a cigar box, quite possibly smaller.
The point is every force has a diffrent purpose, the RM is to be a fast go anywhere kill anything force that has near SAS training and fitness.
 
en....i still dont get wut do u mean by "argument" i never argue with anyone in this post

anyways, british commandos are universally praised, i heard a lot about them
 
This has gotten way off-topic and is turning into a pissing contest, closed until further notice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top