armyreal.com - Forums

Go Back   ArmyReal.com Forums > Military Discussions > Armies of the World
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #351  
Old 02-12-2006, 03:15 AM
ozzi-solja's Avatar
ozzi-solja ozzi-solja is offline
Command Sergeant Major
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 429
Default

Such a powerful and politically antagonising statement... unfortunately you're right
__________________
Who Dares Wins
Reply With Quote

  #352  
Old 03-06-2006, 10:17 AM
royalmarinehopefull royalmarinehopefull is offline
Sergeant First Class
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: liverpool, britian
Posts: 181
Default

hi all
sorry i have'nt been here to reply been up to other stuff but im back now and my thread is going great keep it up guys

thanks
Reply With Quote

  #353  
Old 03-06-2006, 11:46 AM
Royalmarineundercover Royalmarineundercover is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Hia,
I've been away too ,but I'm bak now see so yer tok wi me if yer wont .
Reply With Quote

  #354  
Old 03-08-2006, 07:30 PM
M4M203 M4M203 is offline
Sergeant First Class
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 185
Default

US
GB
Aus.

I would say with the training between GB and US that some parts of GB military are trained better and some parts of the US military are trained better. For technology yes the US has WAY more but i'm also going to say (in my opinion) they have a little edge in it too.
The FA22 Raptor is an amazing jet fighter, could turn out to be the best ever made....but i love the challengers...great accuracy with those.
Reply With Quote

  #355  
Old 03-09-2006, 06:32 AM
Lenin's Avatar
Lenin Lenin is offline
First Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bulgaria the Great
Posts: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M4M203
I would say with the training between GB and US that some parts of GB military are trained better and some parts of the US military are trained better. For technology yes the US has WAY more but i'm also going to say (in my opinion) they have a little edge in it too.
The FA22 Raptor is an amazing jet fighter, could turn out to be the best ever made....but i love the challengers...great accuracy with those.

Dont bring up that idiotic topic plz...... causes too many arguments
__________________
Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
Reply With Quote

  #356  
Old 03-10-2006, 09:55 AM
JonMan JonMan is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M4M203
US
GB
Aus.

I would say with the training between GB and US that some parts of GB military are trained better and some parts of the US military are trained better. For technology yes the US has WAY more but i'm also going to say (in my opinion) they have a little edge in it too.
The FA22 Raptor is an amazing jet fighter, could turn out to be the best ever made....but i love the challengers...great accuracy with those.
No matter what stories you have about Australia, don't deny other powers like Israel and China. If China and Australia were to fight, China would actually have a technologically superior army. Australia and Canada's armies are almost exclusively footsoldiers with just a few hundred tanks, and China(though many uninformed individuals claim have no technology), currently deploys just as many tanks as the US(8000), although not as high in quality. And about 200 combat aircraft compared with 3000-4000 combat aircraft? But both armies have outdated aircraft still. And don't get me started on the size of ground armies.

And Israeli soldiers are more proven in combat than Australian. They can mobilize more troops in bigger numbers than China's standing army and many people here seem to ignore their ability. In addition, they are more advanced than Australia, and some say that their airforce is even more skilled than the US. For your information, an new Israel pilot is trained just as well as a new US pilot, but US often cycles its most experienced pilots to become training instructors. On the other hand Israels best pilots are usually the ones flying the mission. US pilots are less experienced, but able, but the US reserve their best.

I believe Australia's forces are not what they used to be, as they train more periodically, and they do not have a big experienced force, because they have less than 1,000 personnel currently in the coalition forces. Its not very realistic to put Australia over these two nations, but patriotism usually blinds peoples ability to see things realistically.
Reply With Quote

  #357  
Old 03-10-2006, 10:27 AM
royalmarinehopefull royalmarinehopefull is offline
Sergeant First Class
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: liverpool, britian
Posts: 181
Default

NO we can't deny israli as they do have very highly trained and experiaced military no more to be said

but china. They have very aged equiment they lack efficent trianing and they still where old steel helmets for gods sake.
numbers aint everything mate. unitil they sort out they country then they wont have shuch a brilliant army and as someone else said .
by the time they do the west well be better still.
Reply With Quote

  #358  
Old 03-10-2006, 10:38 AM
JonMan JonMan is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 30
Default

Australia's army is deteriorating, and they use aged equipment as well, while China is constantly importing newer weapons. China also has one of the most intricate sam sites, and they are not outdated. They can lock on anything that's not stealthed. Their type 99 tanks aren't bad either. Numbers aren't everything but even if australia could kill 10 chinamen for 1, which no one can really do, then 2-3million versus 20000 leaves aussies screwed.

Besides, real military analysts who look at China say the same thing to people who think like you do. Assumption is both dangerous and wrong.

Last edited by JonMan; 03-10-2006 at 03:27 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #359  
Old 03-10-2006, 09:47 PM
kurusch's Avatar
kurusch kurusch is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,928
Default

[url]http://www.iiss.org/stratcomfree.php?scID=429[/url]

On 19 July, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) released its long-awaited 2005 report on ‘The Military Power of the People’s Republic of China’. ..............

However, the report offers a decidedly worrisome assessment of Chinese plans and intentions, voicing particular concern about the scale and breadth of various weapons development programmes. The document makes explicit reference to a highly diverse range of force modernisation goals across the full spectrum of military operations, including what it deems a major investment in power-projection capabilities. .................

The study draws particular attention to how Chinese defence planners are seeking to counteract major advances in US information dominance and deep strike capabilities.................

This seems especially relevant to Chinese planning for a Taiwan contingency, which the report unambiguously deems the predominant if not exclusive thrust of Beijing’s modernisation efforts. The 2005 assessment asserts that ‘the cross-Strait balance of power is shifting toward Beijing….[its] sustained military buildup…affects the status quo’. The report also highlights the PLA’s extensive acquisitions of sea-denial and related anti-access capabilities, for ‘deterring, defeating, or delaying foreign intervention’ in a Taiwan scenario. All these programmes (for example, purchases of supersonic cruise missiles for naval platforms) have been extensively publicised in open Chinese publications, which the report characterises as an ‘attempt to hold at risk US naval forces, including aircraft carriers and logistic forces, approaching the Taiwan Strait’................

However, the report also asserts that ‘the PLA is generating military capabilities that go beyond a Taiwanscenario’. This characterisation greatly modifies the depiction of Chinese capabilities in earlier assessments. The Pentagon contends that Chinese short- and medium-range missiles will provide the PLA with a ‘regional targeting capability’; similarly, airborne early-warning and control and aerial refuelling acquisitions will purportedly enable ‘extended operations into the South China Sea’, which (in conjunction with longer-term developments in C4ISR) ‘could enable Beijing to identify, target, and track foreign military activities deep into the western Pacific and provide, potentially, hemispheric coverage’. ...............

‘China…continues to invest heavily…in programs designed to improve power projection. The pace and scope of China’s military build-up are, already, such as to put regional military balances at risk…potentially posing a credible threat to modern militaries operating in the region’. Thus, even as the Executive Summary states that ‘China’s ability to project conventional military power beyond its periphery remains limited’, the report depicts Chinese capabilities in far more expansive and worrisome terms. ............

But the overall assessment remains disturbing. China is deemed increasingly capable of simultaneous, coordinated pursuit of defence and development goals, including the introduction of growing numbers of fourth-generation aircraft for maritime strike and related combat roles, and a major enhancement of Beijing’s surface and subsurface navy; the PLA is seen as a prospective threat to major regional militaries ‘if current trends persist’; the PLA further ‘envisions the use of precision strikes to hold at risk…Western Pacific airbases, ports, surface combatants, land-based C4ISR and integrated air defense systems, and command facilities’. The report further asserts that ‘China is working on, and plans to field, ASAT [anti-satellite weapons] systems’. None of these projected capabilities posit that China would constitute a ‘near peer competitor’ to the United States; rather, China has presumably identified potential vulnerabilities that can be exploited both in peacetime and in wartime, thereby shaping the future strategic environment to China’s pronounced advantage................

The 2005 report constitutes a major milestone in US assessments of Chinese military capabilities. For the first time since the Bush administration assumed office, Washington has explicitly characterised China’s military power not only as a threat to Taiwan, but in a larger regional context as well. ...............
__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.'
Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.
Reply With Quote

  #360  
Old 03-11-2006, 03:44 AM
Texas's Avatar
Texas Texas is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonMan
Australia's army is deteriorating, and they use aged equipment as well,
You obviously know little .
The Australian army is increasing in size and updating its tanks with the M1A1 (AIM) Abrams, a modern tank capability that will ensure Australia maintains a supportable, survivable and interoperable tank capability.Also they are equiping themselves with new IMV's and have started modifications to 350 M113A1 vehicles to a higher standard .The 'Tiger' ARH will provide a new reconnaissance and fire support capability for the land force .I won't go on about the new artillery system,TUAV program, development of a holistic battlespace communications architecture for the land environment etc because by now you clearly realise you were talking total crap !

And so in YOUR words "I hate it when people make an argument without doing ANY research".
__________________

Last edited by Texas; 03-11-2006 at 05:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:18 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    
·Contact Us   ·Legal   ·Privacy   ·Link To Us    ·Advertise With Us    ·About Us    ·Site Map     
     Copyright 2004-2019 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Armyreal.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.