Originally posted by Strangelove
China's military has about 2.8 million people in its army, but it's poorly trained and equipped.
Name me any military in the world that can beat China's apart from the United States.
Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
and they do kamikazes 🤪
😂 That's Japan. And they did those in World War II. bangin
Originally posted by Nellinator
Surprised to see Brazil and Turkey ahead of the UK considering their equipment and training advantages.
Turkey producing best weapons. Best sniper rifles, machine guns, howitzers and more
CIA Factbook Turkey
The Turkish Army is one of the largest standing armies in the world and the second largest army of NATO. The Turkish Army can deploy an Army Corps of 50,000 men to conduct joint operations at short notice. The Army can conduct air assault operations with a lift capability of up to six battalions at a time, day and night.
The Turkish Air Force is one of the oldest air forces in the world and operates one of the largest combat aircraft fleets of NATO. In its long history, many famous air aces and aviation pioneers have served in the Turkish Air Force, including Sabiha Gökçen, the world's first female combat pilot. Supported by the TuAF's in-flight refueling capability, the fighter jets of the Turkish Air Force can participate in international operations and exercises on every major continent and return back to their home bases.
The Turkish Navy has historically been one of the largest sea powers of the Mediterranean. Supported by its replenishment ships, the Turkish Navy can participate in international operations and exercises on every major sea and ocean of the world. Submarines can individually navigate up to 15,000 nautical miles (28,000 km) and return back to their home bases.
Many Armies training in Turkey. (Like Israel,UAE..)
Many Armies using Turkish Military System (Like Pakistan..)
And they have 40 Million available person for military servise in 70 million people. Also +400 Million people speaking Turkish in the world. (Turkic Peoples)
About Turks Army
"I now understand that the vote I gave in favor of assistance to Turkey was the most fitting vote I gave in my life. Courage, bravery and heroism are the greatest virtues which will sooner or later conquer. In this matter, I know no nation superior to the Turks." - Rose - U.S. Senator
"The Turks are the hero of heroes. There is no impossibility for the Turkish Brigade." - General Douglas MacArthur - General Douglas MacArthur - United Nations Forces Commander in Chief
Soo...its not surprise.
Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.
What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.
i think it depends.
if either of the countries' aims were to simply move in to the country and kill the shit out of it it wouldnt be that hard of a task. as it stands, trying to occupy the country or any of the middle eastern countries is almost an impossibility because any civilian is a possible enemy, but the soldiers arent allowed to preemptively fight civilians... as that would defeat the purpose of being there in the first place.
but regardless youre right. its not as if their armies are just is much superior.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Russians were in Afghanistan, and Shaheeds and Mujahedeens that ''sent Russia packing'' were trained and equipped by USA. Taliban was an entirely American funded/trained/sponsored group to fight off those ''komunist'' Russians.What Russians found out the hard way and America apparently still hasn't is that the terrain of Afghanistan is already extremely difficult lead any kind of war in, let alone successfully invade.
True
it all depends on how you want to classify the groups. While the concept is similar, the Mujahedeens in Iraq are not the same that were in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Somalia, Kashmir or Palestine. However, loosely put, they all fight under essentially the same flag and have similar tactics and recruitment methods. Also, the leaders from some conflicts did migrate to others in order to train in fledgling organizations.
Whatever it is, the sort of pan-arab nationalism is strong, and Afghanistan aside, the Muj has given NATO, Russia, India and a ever increasing number of smaller nations pretty glaring black eyes.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
its not as if their armies are just is much superior.
-Iraqi resistance groups force the withdrawal of every non-American member of the coalition of the willing, and soon to be the Americans as well.
-Lebanon defeats Israel in the Summer War.
-Many NATO generals claim that the Taliban is too strong militarily to defeat in Afghanistan without full scale war with Pakistan. The British have gone so far as to say "There is no military solution in Afghanistan". They didn't mention the terrain iirc.
Their armies might not be technologically superior, but asymmetrical warfare can even out a battlefield quite quickly.
Originally posted by inimalist
-Iraqi resistance groups force the withdrawal of every non-American member of the coalition of the willing, and soon to be the Americans as well.-Lebanon defeats Israel in the Summer War.
-Many NATO generals claim that the Taliban is too strong militarily to defeat in Afghanistan without full scale war with Pakistan. The British have gone so far as to say "There is no military solution in Afghanistan". They didn't mention the terrain iirc.
Their armies might not be technologically superior, but asymmetrical warfare can even out a battlefield quite quickly.
those events you listed reinforce what i said...
there is no military solution because our specific military goal is unachievable. if the united states goal was to, for example, kill every man women and child in iraq and afghanistan we could do it even without the use of nukes and moabs. they wouldnt be able to stop us with their military. no single middle eastern country would be able to defeat us without otuside help or circumstances.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
those events you listed reinforce what i said...there is no military solution because our specific military goal is unachievable. if the untied states goal was to, for example, kill every man women and child in iraq and afghanistan we coudl do it even without the use of nukes and moabs. they wouldnt be able to stop us with their military.
indeed, but that isn't how the Americans wage war
and the Muj strategy prevented them from achieving their actual goals
its not how they wage war, but it proves that ultimately if the two armies fought head to head the US would emerge victorious. most of the middle eastern countries rely on the fact that our goal is to institute a new government not destroy everything or enslave the people. thus i wouldnt call any of the middle eastern militaries "powerful" so to speak.
im mostly just referring to the thread's topic. i personally consider a militarie's "strength" by how well it can defend a country as well as invade others. for all of their guerrilla tactics id say 99% of the ME countries would get decimated if they tried to invade a first world country. as such i dont really consider them all that strong as opposed to countries like the us and russia who can succesfully defend their homelands and take out the majority of the world's countries without difficulty in a straight up fight.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
its not how they wage war, but it proves that ultimately if the two armies fought head to head the US would emerge victorious. most of the middle eastern countries rely on the fact that our goal is to institute a new government not destroy everything or enslave the people. thus i wouldnt call any of the middle eastern militaries "powerful" so to speak.im mostly just referring to the thread's topic. i personally consider a militarie's "strength" by how well it can defend a country as well as invade others. for all of their guerrilla tactics id say 99% of the ME countries would get decimated if they tried to invade a first world country. as such i dont really consider them all that strong as opposed to countries like the us and russia who can succesfully defend their homelands and take out the majority of the world's countries without difficulty in a straight up fight.
the strength of the Muj is that there is no army to stand and fight against head to head. They use a different type of strength that isn't really comparable directly to conventional armies, but is highly effective at defeating them.
Also, the Muj is very different from middle eastern state armies, another one of its strengths actually.
EDIT: Both Saudi Arabia and Iran would likely have their way with the Canadian forces if they met head to head on neutral ground. Neither would be able to occupy Canada, though I would argue that is more due to Canada being unoccupiable.
Originally posted by inimalist
the strength of the Muj is that there is no army to stand and fight against head to head. They use a different type of strength that isn't really comparable directly to conventional armies, but is highly effective at defeating them.
thats why i dont really consider them a "powerful military". i personally dont consider factions who use civilians as shields and as weapons to be "armies".
EDIT: Both Saudi Arabia and Iran would likely have their way with the Canadian forces if they met head to head on neutral ground. Neither would be able to occupy Canada, though I would argue that is more due to Canada being unoccupiable.
its canada lol buncha hippies. 😄 😛
Originally posted by WO Polaski
thats why i dont really consider them a "powerful military". i personally dont consider factions who use civilians as shields and as weapons to be "armies".
Fair enough, but that is a matter of tactics. Conventional state armies, I'm sure, do similar, if not more atrocious things (think the Burmese and that ilk).
Originally posted by WO Polaski
its canada lol buncha hippies. 😄 😛
Still
inimalist - 1
WO Polaski - 0