This is related to another thread I started about tactical differences between our troops and the troops of other nations. That thread lead me to the broader question:

Are U.S. Soldiers Really the Best in the World? Why?

How about our troops compare to some other good, well-trained troops. How do our troops compare to, say, the Israelis?

Some advantages that U.S. troops have come to mind.

1) Well-equipped.

2) Experience: name one other nation that has been fighting all over the world for as long as our guys?

So, if our troops are really the best (and I believe they are ), tell me why? If you can, justify your reasons with specific stories or experiences.

NOTE: if you are from another country and/or disagree that the U.S. soldiers are the best in the world, tell me why; and please include your name and address so I can forward it to my Marine buddies <---your face here. Ha ha. Just kiddin'. Any and all feedback will be appreciated.

I do not know if they are really the best or the best equipped  that is more a matter of opnion many  1st world nations have very competent well equipped  forces
However the US has the best support and ability to project force and that in the end is what matters

The U.S. military is without a doubt the best in the world, in terms of power, capability, etc.

The individual U.S. soldier, if we are talking about a regular line infantry unit, has its equal in the British infantry soldier, IMO.  

There are other really good infantry troops from other countries (personallly, of course, I consider many of the Scandinavian countries to have well-trained, hihg quality infantry troops ), but I don't believe they quite match the quality and training of the U.S. and British units.  



(I'm only looking at regular infantry, because the comparison between "special" units quickly becomes pointless, because there are many high-quality ones in the West, and I didn't really think that was your question).

US is definitely the best in terms of total force.  Other countries may beat us in some particulars, but no other country in the world can simultaneously project force using subs, carriers, cruise missiles, airpower,  and line units like we can, backed up by the best logistics and communication structure.

Please define "best".

I know our Air Force has to have the money to train and fly more then any other in the world.  Well, maybe the Chinese come close in flying hours but that's a complete guess.

~Dg84

Training and logistical support.

Quoted:

I know that the British SAS are unbelievable. I read a book about an SAS soldier that ran.... thats right... ran across Iraq in Syria with nothing more than a rifle and two boots on his feet. He engaged two truck loads of soldiers during his flight.

We don't teach our people to throw their lives away for the government. We don't fill their heads full of lies about serving the state, racial superiority, the need for growing room, our manifest destiny or preserving our way of life. We simply defend ourselves from people who do. They are good enuigh, so far.

Comes down to a question of money. That money makes for better toys and quality of training. Not to say that every cook in the Army gets Ranger training, but as a whole we turn out more competent soldiers and marines than most countries.

Battlefield information management and marriage of assets like CAS have a lot to do with our warfighting capability. Taking supply logistics aside, I think we could win a theoretical war against Europe and gloves off, could accomplish a technical victory in less than 6 months.

I agree, there are some first rate militaries out there though.

Dave

Quoted: We don't teach our people to throw their lives away for the government. We don't fill their heads full of lies about serving the state, racial superiority, the need for growing room, our manifest destiny or preserving our way of life. We simply defend ourselves from people who do. They are good enuigh, so far.

also everyone serving chose to serve.

Quoted: Training and logistical support.

+1

I don't think any other country can provide such realistic training for its troops, or project as much power as we can onto any place on the globe.

Quoted: Please define "best".

Well, at one level, war is pretty simple. He who accomplish his mission wins, he who doesn't loses..and might not be around to realize it. So, I'd define "best" as he who is most able to accomplish his mission in a conflict.

Now, that being said, I've heard that the Israelis have "the best" intelligence gathering capabilities...at least as it applies to dealing with bomb-carrying terrorists.

I've also heard that their pilots are amazing.

As far as my question, though. I was kinda thinkin' about infantry soldiers or special forces units.  

I would say we have the best pilots, as far as individual infantry goes, we're definitely in the running for the top of the list. Special forces... SBS and SAS guys are real good, so are our Seals and Recon Marines, the IDF has good soldiers, and they have been in just as much fighting as our guys have.

Lot's of other nations have higher standards and make their SF guys train a lot more and are more selective, I know we've had a couple threads on the matter, and I'm not as knowledge in that area, so I'll shut my mouth on that one.

I would say that the US Military is the most powerful military force in history, IMHO.

Amatures talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics.

Warfare is all about logistics.  We have the best logistics by far, than anyone else in the world.

When you combine the logistics with the technological superiority, the training and vision to actually use all of that tech, and add in the soldier, you have the best overall military in the world.

While The Brits or the Danes (Trained with both)may equal us man on man. The total force and ability to project that force that the American Serviceman has is unequaled.

How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy?
The EU/DPRK/PRC?

Quoted: While The Brits or the Danes (Trained with both)may equal us man on man. The total force and ability to project that force that the American Serviceman has is unequaled.

w00t  !!






Btw - many of your probably have no idea just how ludicrously TINY the Danish army really is.  You probably have more cooks in the U.S. army than we have troops.  

Quoted: How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy? The EU/DPRK/PRC?

There really is nobody that can stand up to the U.S. in a fight.


If all the nations of western Europe had a unified command, they could give the U.S. a good fight, but they'd still be crushed.  

The EU/DPRK/PRC?
EU- French would run. Germany would put up a fight. The rest would be a little difficult, but not too much trouble. Englane would have to see whose side they're on.
DPRK- Massive wave assaults vs. heavy firepower. They threaten/use WMD's- we retaliate. NK doesn't exist.
PRC- Stir-fry

Quoted: How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy? The EU/DPRK/PRC?

We'll win. Against all three? Hard to say. You're talking like 60% of the world's land mass and some of the biggest governments. The EU? Easy. We already know the Brit's are on our side, they always have. DPRK? Democratic people's republic of Kaliforna? Easy. I'll take this one myself guys. China? Japan and South Korea could deal with it for a long time, we could help them out but in the end we would win.

Honestly, the Iraq war has shed light on a lot of weaknesses in the U.S. forces.

We are relying more and more on the Reserve component to fight our wars, yet the level of training and the equipment in the Reserves varies widely.

Don't get me wrong, reservists have done some outstanding work overseas lately.  But, the fact that we were/are sending platoons full of borderline obese, 40 somethings carrying M16A1 conversions, driving around in rag-top HUMVEEs to Iraq is scary.  You simply can't reach of an active duty unit in most cases.

You simply can't get rid of people in the reverves.  The Army wants to keep the "numbers" high, so standards drop to nothing.

If this trend continues, we will see the active duty shrink more and more, and our ability as a whole will diminish.

I was thinking more on the lines of an all volunteer force backed by some of the best technology in the world, with a purpose to serve.

Quoted: Quoted: How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy? The EU/DPRK/PRC? We'll win. Against all three? Hard to say. You're talking like 60% of the world's land mass and some of the biggest governments. The EU? Easy. We already know the Brit's are on our side, they always have. DPRK? Democratic people's republic of Kaliforna? Easy. I'll take this one myself guys. China? Japan and South Korea could deal with it for a long time, we could help them out but in the end we would win.

No, no I must have miscommunicated.
I was throwing out what I felt were three modestly competent world powers who might be on the wrong side of the fight.
People mentioned nukes - what about in a conventional war?
I feel that we could not win a conventional war against the PRC.

I have trained with the British, Aussies, and Canadian's, the British and Aussies are very top notch and Professional outfits.  The Canadians has some outstanding troops but they don't get very good funding which is a shame.

  Since I am a former Marine, who obviously volunteered. I feel that when we have troops who HAVE THE DESIRE TO SERVE, morale will be higher, attrition rates lower, and overall unit cohesion will remain tighter. When you go into battle with men to your left and right who are equally as trained as you, you tend to feel more confident. Money is definitely a BIG factor. We give our pilots more in flight training than any other country. We have the money to train, train, and train our troops some more. So that when they come in contact with enemy forces, every man knows his job, and they just react, automatically. Not to mention the technology we put in the field.
  As far as going up against other "traditional armies".....I feel it would take an alliance of several countries to just completely overwhelm us with sheer numbers. That scenario aside, I feel that US forces could hold their own against any nation.    Semper Fi!  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy? The EU/DPRK/PRC? We'll win. Against all three? Hard to say. You're talking like 60% of the world's land mass and some of the biggest governments. The EU? Easy. We already know the Brit's are on our side, they always have. DPRK? Democratic people's republic of Kaliforna? Easy. I'll take this one myself guys. China? Japan and South Korea could deal with it for a long time, we could help them out but in the end we would win. h.gif No, no I must have miscommunicated. I was throwing out what I felt were three modestly competent world powers who might be on the wrong side of the fight. People mentioned nukes - what about in a conventional war? I feel that we could not win a conventional war against the PRC.

The PRC is a scary scenario. They have over a million man INFANTRY alone...not to mention artillery, armor, planes, etc....If we went to China we would have our hands full. I  feel any army fights more fiercely when they're defending their own homeland. If the PRC came to America with bad intent, they don't have a chance. Thanks to our wonderful second amendment, they would have to deal with our conventional forces, and also with every American who is armed. Because I know that I would NEVR tolerate another nation occupying mine.   Semper Fi!

Quoted: I do not know if they are really the best or the best equipped  that is more a matter of opnion many  1st world nations have very competent well equipped  forces However the US has the best support and ability to project force and that in the end is what matters

You say "Many" like they are in abundance. There is only ONE first world nation. I have been all over the planet and its all shit compared to the U.S. The rest of the world has no clue about quality of life and standards.

Our troops are so good we call them "operators".

Quoted: Quoted: I do not know if they are really the best or the best equipped  that is more a matter of opnion many  1st world nations have very competent well equipped  forces However the US has the best support and ability to project force and that in the end is what matters You say "Many" like they are in abundance. There is only ONE first world nation. I have been all over the planet and its all shit compared to the U.S. The rest of the world has no clue about quality of life and standards.

For me to expand I would say Britian, Germany, France ,Denmark, the Nethelands , Israel, Australia, Canada, Taiwan, South korea , Japan   I sure there are a couple i forgot  

Quoted:   Since I am a former Marine, who obviously volunteered. I feel that when we have troops who HAVE THE DESIRE TO SERVE, morale will be higher, attrition rates lower, and overall unit cohesion will remain tighter. When you go into battle with men to your left and right who are equally as trained as you, you tend to feel more confident. Money is definitely a BIG factor. We give our pilots more in flight training than any other country. We have the money to train, train, and train our troops some more. So that when they come in contact with enemy forces, every man knows his job, and they just react, automatically. Not to mention the technology we put in the field.   As far as going up against other "traditional armies".....I feel it would take an alliance of several countries to just completely overwhelm us with sheer numbers. That scenario aside, I feel that US forces could hold their own against any nation.    Semper Fi!

Hey!  Stop by the OHIO Hometown forum and say hi!

We're having a shoot/gathering the 21-22nd of this month.  You'll see threads on it in the ohio forum.
Come down and shoot with us!

Training and technology make our guys good. Best in the world man for man? Tough call.

Logistics is extremely important for force effectiveness but on a man basis it is training and technology.

In 10-15 years we will not be able to defeat China in Asia. That's all I am going to say about that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How will things go if we have to fight a land war against a competent enemy? The EU/DPRK/PRC? We'll win. Against all three? Hard to say. You're talking like 60% of the world's land mass and some of the biggest governments. The EU? Easy. We already know the Brit's are on our side, they always have. DPRK? Democratic people's republic of Kaliforna? Easy. I'll take this one myself guys. China? Japan and South Korea could deal with it for a long time, we could help them out but in the end we would win. No, no I must have miscommunicated. I was throwing out what I felt were three modestly competent world powers who might be on the wrong side of the fight. People mentioned nukes - what about in a conventional war? I feel that we could not win a conventional war against the PRC.

I think it would end up being a huge rocket/artillery exchange between the two with neither reAlly gaining anything. China couldn't invade Taiwan and the US couldn't hold land long enough due to the Chinese hordes of infantry. Both sides would be launching massive artillery strikes on each other to land infantry...etc.

Air War would be interesting to watch how well the latest chinese stuff stacks up.

Training, Technology and Supply/Logistics make a huge difference. There a lot of countries troops that have top reps as fighters but don't get as much Technology and Supply such as the ROK Marines.

Quoted: I have trained with the British, Aussies, and Canadian's, the British and Aussies are very top notch and Professional outfits.  The Canadians has some outstanding troops but they don't get very good funding which is a shame.

Thanks for the reply. I just sent you an IM for more specifics.

I always thought it was due to the high level of professionalism in the NCO ranks of all our national services, coupled with the fact that we train our soldiers to use initiative in order to exploit the fluid conditions of battle. But, what the hell do I know?

Quoted: Quoted: I do not know if they are really the best or the best equipped  that is more a matter of opnion many  1st world nations have very competent well equipped  forces However the US has the best support and ability to project force and that in the end is what matters You say "Many" like they are in abundance. There is only ONE first world nation. I have been all over the planet and its all shit compared to the U.S. The rest of the world has no clue about quality of life and standards.

Apart from your lack of understanding of the actual MEANING of "First World" I wonder where you have actually travelled to.  First World refers to must of western Europe and the other industrialized civilized countries of the world during the Cold War - essentially NATO, plus Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and I guess Japan and S. Korea.

There are plenty of countries is Western and Northern Europe that have standards of living comparable or better than the U.S. - depending on how you choose to calculate "quality of life"

Scandinavian countries (as an example I am familiar with) have a very high standard of living, healthy economies, historically very low violent crime rates, fewer work hours and higher quality of life, and consistently score highest among the world in terms of measre of "happiness" and stuff like that.  

To claim that "it's all shit" merely suggests that you are either ignorant, or have not traveled extensively enough.

Just my opinion - more of a clarification, really.  

Quoted: Training, Technology and Supply/Logistics make a huge difference. There a lot of countries troops that have top reps as fighters but don't get as much Technology and Supply such as the ROK Marines.

That was a HUGE problem when I was in the Danish army.

Really good individual and unit training, and highly motivated soldiers - but a horrible mismatch of out-dated equipment (and some really modern stuff), and poor logistics.  



As an example - in the 1980s we used completely outdated WW2 british pattern webbing and U.S. style steel helmets, yet had Mercedes G-class vehicles as the basic "jeep" type 4x4.    If we had stuck with the cheaper land rovers, we could have gotten modern webbing and helmets (and probably rifles) for everyone.  Sure the GD kicks incredible ass as a 4x4, but the choices were completely unbalanced.

Of course, right after I left, everything was modernized, and they got all sorts of cool shit  New rifles, new vests, new helmets, new optics, new vehicles, new armor, new helicopters, ... the list goes on.  

American soldiers are "the best" because we train, deploy, and fight more often than everyone. So we're used to combat tempo and combat problems. We know how to keep clean, we know how to maintain, we know how to use, we know how to move, we know how to innovate, and we know how to support everything directly and indirectly related to combat.

Any military that fights the USA will get casualties due to a breakdown in personal hygiene and lack of supplies. Look at the Iraqis. They had trillion$ of oil money, a lot of manpower, and a huge shopping list of weaponry from all over the world. They fought us and their soldiers ended up dirty, hungry, and thirsty.

Another potential showdown may happen in China and I'm going to laugh when commie Chinese troops start to crumble before we even penetrate their borders. It takes a lot of fish, rice, water, and soap to keep a million men in fighting trim. Now multiply that by the factor of "communist efficiency" and you will see that the commie Chinese won't be able to stay in the fight when their troops start dropping due to disease and starvation.

The individual infantryman doesn't strike me as being any better equipped or trained than that of many other countries. The difference, and the place where the US has its advantage, is in the supporting structures. The logistical abilities, the variety of different equipment that can be brought to bear (Artillery, aircraft, armour), power projection, so on.

It is possible even that in some respects, the individual American soldier is inferior to some others. The catch though is that it doesn't matter. Let's say the oft-quoted marksmanship issue. British Army has traditionally place great emphasis on individual rifle marksmanship, to the point that it even went around selecting semi-auto-only rifles. The American point of view is 'why train a US soldier to be incredibly accurate with his rifle at 300m when we've provided him with a perfectly capable radio and half an artillery battalion a few miles behind him?' It's a war-winning technique, it's just a different technique. That's why I think straight comparisons between US and other nations militaries are pretty redundant. Apples and oranges. A US soldier uses the strenghts of the US military. A British, German, whoever, uses their own system that works for them.

NTM

We wouldn't need to fight because Chuck Norris would roundhouse kick their army in the face!


The only thing that worries me in any scenario is the people here, back at home.  It's not the same breed as was in WWII.  Too many pussies who'd rather throw in the towel against anyone we fight for any reason whether we're attacked or not.

Now if the enemy bombed Berkley, forget about it, we win...

Quoted: American soldiers are "the best" because we train, deploy, and fight more often than everyone. So we're used to combat tempo and combat problems. We know how to keep clean, we know how to maintain, we know how to use, we know how to move, we know how to innovate, and we know how to support everything directly and indirectly related to combat. Any military that fights the USA will get casualties due to a breakdown in personal hygiene and lack of supplies. Look at the Iraqis. They had trillion$ of oil money, a lot of manpower, and a huge shopping list of weaponry from all over the world. They fought us and their soldiers ended up dirty, hungry, and thirsty. Another potential showdown may happen in China and I'm going to laugh when commie Chinese troops start to crumble before we even penetrate their borders. It takes a lot of fish, rice, water, and soap to keep a million men in fighting trim. Now multiply that by the factor of "communist efficiency" and you will see that the commie Chinese won't be able to stay in the fight when their troops start dropping due to disease and starvation.

As much as I wish you were right...you aren't.
Underestimating your enemy leads to defeat, or near defeat.
Look at the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War - sure they won in the end, but how close did they come to getting wiped out because they believed their own propoganda.

My grand dad fought the Chinese in Korea...they were no pushovers...

Quoted: To claim that "it's all shit" merely suggests that you are either ignorant, or have not traveled extensively enough. Just my opinion - more of a clarification, really.

Gotta wonder about your choice to live in the United States. Says volumes. People from EVERY nation want to leave their home in search of a better life in the U.S

Quoted: As much as I wish you were right...you aren't. Underestimating your enemy leads to defeat, or near defeat. Look at the Israelis in the Yom Kippur War - sure they won in the end, but how close did they come to getting wiped out because they believed their own propoganda. My grand dad fought the Chinese in Korea...they were no pushovers...

Oh please, gimme break. The commie Chinese aren't dumb. If they thought their logistics were good enough to hold off the US military, they would "annex" neighboring nations. They haven't because they know they can't withstand a US conventional assault against their supplies. Heck, commie China doesn't even have enough fuel to sustain a war because it has to import a HUGE chunk of it's oil.

BTW, the commie Chinese were pushovers in North Korea. MacArthur got screwed when he had them beaten. The US military had the commies whipped. We were in front and behind them on land and we held both sides of the water. The USSR had to step in with a nuclear threat, plus there was UN pressure to lay off the pressure on Chinese troops and allow for "ceasefire". It would've been a massive embarrassment for "The Revolution" if US troops chased the battered Chinese military across the border into China.

In terms of individual infantryman, hard to tell they have never faced a superior #s army or an infantry of near or equal footing.

Bulk of U.S. killing is done by the USAF far and away.  It must be said virtually no force will be allowed to arrive in battle intact to fight U.S. infantry, and even if they did you have air superiority problems.  To my knowlege no aircraft has fired/released on U.S. forces since Korea.  Rifles are inferior to most but training balances the equation.  Till O.I.F the average Israeli police officer had more combat experience than nearly all active duty combat arms units in the U.S. military.  That said I have a hard time believing the Brits are on equal footing in terms of infantry.

Countries I would least like to invade are in no particular order; Sweden, Switzerland, Finland(ask the Russians) and the former Yugoslavian countries.  Arms in all the above are abundant as are trained shooters that would fight.  

Quoted: The U.S. military is without a doubt the best in the world, in terms of power, capability, etc. The individual U.S. soldier, if we are talking about a regular line infantry unit, has its equal in the British infantry soldier, IMO.   There are other really good infantry troops from other countries (personallly, of course, I consider many of the Scandinavian countries to have well-trained, hihg quality infantry troops ), but I don't believe they quite match the quality and training of the U.S. and British units.   (I'm only looking at regular infantry, because the comparison between "special" units quickly becomes pointless, because there are many high-quality ones in the West, and I didn't really think that was your question).

I agree with the Dutch guy.  

My experience with Scandinavian troops bears this out.  I worked more closely with the Danes and Swedes, but also with the Norwegians and Fins.  I was very impressed by their intelligence, professionalism, and equipment.  I recall being in a Danish Chow hall and watching with embarassment at the behavior of a few American soldiers acting like they were back in the hood, while the Danish soldiers sat and ate their meals like normal respectable people.  I made a point of sitting with the Danes instead of the Americans that day, and I think my point was well taken.  

Overall their equipment was pretty good.  The Fins had M-76 Valmets, the Norwegians had G3's, the Swedes AK-5's (Modified FNC's), and the Danes all had M-16's (Diemaco?) with Elcan's.  Our LBE was superior to the Swedes, but I really don't remember much about that used by the others.  The Swedes had very old fashioned all leather gear that I'm sure was durable, but it wasn't as easy to use as ours, or as comfortable.  The Swedes I spoke with hated theirs, and seemed to like the LBV's they saw some Americans using, and many told me they prefered the old fashioned TA-50 type LBE I had.  

I felt the Danes were at a disadvantage in their Leopard 1 tanks, but in Bosnia there wasn't much of an armor threat and, IIRC, they also have the very respectable Leopard 2.  They were riding around in M-113's with an add-on armor kit on the hulls.  I believe they were essentally A2 models, but I could be wrong.  The other 3 countries troops were riding around in the SISU 6X6 wheeled armored vehicles. Lightly armed and armored, but a huge step up from the up-armored HMMWV's that we were just starting to get.  Beyond a doubt they would be food for a Bradley, but they were perfect for the type of mission we had in Bosnia, much like the Strykers, but without the RWS and only 6 wheels.

I remember the Swedes had non encripted radio's, which surprised me as thats all we had, and I kind of figured everyone else did too.  They had to use some kind of goofy atachment that they typed into and held up to the radio mike.  It would transmit a coded message that the guy on the other side recieved by holding his device up to his hand mike or speaker.  It apparently worked well enough, but it was definatly slower and more difficult than what we had.  Their Gas masks were of a much higher quality than ours.  They met all NATO specs, but there was much less breathing resistance through the filters (which were compatable with the ones from my M-40), and they had better visability.  

Overall, I was left with the impression that a platoon of Danes or Swedes would have given a very good fight against a platoon of US infantry - and may have come out on top.  In larger engagements however, no one can really match us yet, due to our level of technology, power projection, and logistics capability.  Though I have no direct experience with them, I'm pretty confident that one could say the same about the Brits, Israelis, Aussi's, and a few others.  

Then again, with our recent experience with combat in Iraq and Asskrackistan - experience that is not really shared with anyone except the Brits on any large scale - I would have to give the edge to a combat tested American unit over a nontested European unit (I would say the same over a non-veteran US unit too).


-K

It is surprising how few militaries use SINCGARS-like encryption radios on standard issue. Even the British Bowman system is only just entering widespread service. Ireland has been using SINCGARS for years, I'm assuming the British delay has been in the fact that Bowman is actually a much larger suite of things than just voice communications, and they had a lot more stuff to figure out.

As for China, they are biding their time until they can reclaim Taiwan. What's stopping them isn't the Army, it's their Navy. (Or lack thereof). Until they fix that, aggression will be limited.

NTM

Quoted: While The Brits or the Danes (Trained with both)may equal us man on man. The total force and ability to project that force that the American Serviceman has is unequaled.

So, DanishM1Garand, what differences did you noticed between the way our troops act and do things versus the foreign troops you've trained with? Tell me anything that you can think of: different hand signals, different ways of holding weapons, different ways of walking in formations....anything that comes to mind that was particular to a group of soldiers...things that stood out as being different than American soldiers.

NOTE: I was going to send you an IM asking you this, but you've got your IMs and e-mail disabled.

Quoted: I know that the British SAS are unbelievable. I read a book about an SAS soldier that ran.... thats right... ran across Iraq in Syria with nothing more than a rifle and two boots on his feet. He engaged two truck loads of soldiers during his flight.

bravo two zero, BBC made a movie about that as well.  very good IMO.

the entire team killed at least 80 iraqis during their flight.   three of them were killed in a freak blizzard, two were captured and later released, and one walked to syria. i believe that guy lost a few toes to frostbite.