Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

 

2007-07-08 01:25:10
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7202|PNW

Drakef wrote:

I find the idea of special forces' importance rather insignificant when compared to the legions of Rome or the armies of Alexander or Cyrus, to name but a few examples.

I'd really like to see some educated and intelligent answers.
Few stop long to think about the technicians and engineers who maintain all this stuff, and even less pause to consider who foots the bill. Money is the most important aspect of any capable war-fighting force, but nobody makes movies about it.

But seriously, the role of special forces is important for certain applications. Otherwise, there would be no special forces.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-08 01:26:44)

2007-07-08 01:36:20
Lai
Member
+186|6581

imortal wrote:

They conquered more of the world (as a percentage of area known at teh time) than any other army in the world of any age.
Conquered or sacked? They may have walked from Macedonia through Persia to India, but didn't actually maintained it. Persepolis was just overun and burned to the ground and the army moved on.

If we're looking at the largest area "conquered", present day America would win; at least if you count socio-political influence. If it doesn't count, the Brittish Empire would probably win.
2007-07-10 07:59:04
senor_fulff
Member
+25|7190|Yorkshire, UK.

blisteringsilence wrote:

If the US special forces community is so worthless (and let's remember, there are many, many little bits to that community: the army has Rangers, Green Berets, SOAR, and Delta, the navy has UDT and the SEALS, the air scouts have PJ's, and the marines have recon), then why does the rest of the world want to come and cross-train with them so badly?
Two Words for ya....

TARGET. PRACTICE.

Last edited by senor_fulff (2007-07-10 08:00:51)

2008-02-01 12:08:55
Ghandi767
Member
+17|7052|Hanging in the Balance

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

Things to think about In Relationship to the rest of the world at the time:
-Superiority
-Response time and Mobilization
-Morale
-Equipment
-Numbers
-Supply Lines
-Recruitment Methods
-Public Image
-Training
-Global Impact
Old thread but why not?

I have a few.

1. Modern US Military
Superiority: Unmatched in Conventional Warfare, Arguably Best Equipped for unconventional
Response Time/Mobilization: Giant Strategic Air Lift + Sea Lift Capability, and 2 MEUs patrolling at all times. Conventional Units on 72 hour standby.
Morale: High
Equipment: Top-Notch
Numbers: Moderate
Supply Lines: Strong (Tons of Cargo Aircraft, Helos and the Infratstructure)
Recruitment Methods: Professional Army > Conscription
Public Image: Good IMO, could vary
Training- Excellent
Global Impact- Very Large

2. Early 1700s British Military
Dominated the World for a Long, Long Time

3. Spartans:
Fiercest warriors of their day,
2008-02-01 12:18:55
Mugen
Member
+19|6429

Ghandi767 wrote:

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

Things to think about In Relationship to the rest of the world at the time:
-Superiority
-Response time and Mobilization
-Morale
-Equipment
-Numbers
-Supply Lines
-Recruitment Methods
-Public Image
-Training
-Global Impact
Old thread but why not?

I have a few.

1. Modern US Military
Superiority: Unmatched in Conventional Warfare, Arguably Best Equipped for unconventional
Response Time/Mobilization: Giant Strategic Air Lift + Sea Lift Capability, and 2 MEUs patrolling at all times. Conventional Units on 72 hour standby.
Morale: High
Equipment: Top-Notch
Numbers: Moderate
Supply Lines: Strong (Tons of Cargo Aircraft, Helos and the Infratstructure)
Recruitment Methods: Professional Army > Conscription
Public Image: Good IMO, could vary
Training- Excellent
Global Impact- Very Large

2. Early 1700s British Military
Dominated the World for a Long, Long Time

3. Spartans:
Fiercest warriors of their day,
Don't want to be the generic anti-american faggot but it sounds "a little" biased...especially the public image one though it's arguable.

Anyway, damn old thread O_o
2008-02-01 12:27:07
Ghandi767
Member
+17|7052|Hanging in the Balance

Mugen wrote:

Ghandi767 wrote:

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

Things to think about In Relationship to the rest of the world at the time:
-Superiority
-Response time and Mobilization
-Morale
-Equipment
-Numbers
-Supply Lines
-Recruitment Methods
-Public Image
-Training
-Global Impact
Old thread but why not?

I have a few.

1. Modern US Military
Superiority: Unmatched in Conventional Warfare, Arguably Best Equipped for unconventional
Response Time/Mobilization: Giant Strategic Air Lift + Sea Lift Capability, and 2 MEUs patrolling at all times. Conventional Units on 72 hour standby.
Morale: High
Equipment: Top-Notch
Numbers: Moderate
Supply Lines: Strong (Tons of Cargo Aircraft, Helos and the Infratstructure)
Recruitment Methods: Professional Army > Conscription
Public Image: Good IMO, could vary
Training- Excellent
Global Impact- Very Large

2. Early 1700s British Military
Dominated the World for a Long, Long Time

3. Spartans:
Fiercest warriors of their day,
Don't want to be the generic anti-american faggot but it sounds "a little" biased...especially the public image one though it's arguable.

Anyway, damn old thread O_o
I'm open to healthy debate

My reasoning:
Superiority: Who could take the US on in a conventional war? Soviet Union probably would've been extremely close, and the Soviets might have won. But today? Naah. USAF and USN are both the relatively undisputed champions in the air and on the seas. USMC and US Army are huge, effective, and well trained.

Response Time: US has the largest transport capability in the world as well as a Marine Expeditionary Unit in both major oceans 24/7.

Morale: Its good

Equipment: Yeah... Nothing too worrisome.

Numbers: a little over 1,400,000 I believe. Pretty large

Supply Lines: C130s, Trucks, and Helos coming out of our ears.

Recruitment Methods: Seeing as though they keep over 1,400,000 people in voluntarily, they cant be bad...

Public Image: Yeah it obviously varies from country to country. I doubt the Baathists have any great love for it. But the US Military does tend to be the one who is leading (both through officers and firepower/men) any UN or NATO Military Operation (Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. etc.)

Training: Its very good

Global Impact: Very large
2008-02-01 12:29:23
Magpie
international welder....Douchebag Dude, <3 ur mom
+257|6956|Milkystania, yurop
Crusaders
2008-02-01 12:31:48
SealXo
Member
+309|6966
spartans
2008-02-01 13:17:24
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6941|Gold Coast
Israelis, they'll fight for anything.

The EU/NATO as a whole, logistics etc is there, manpower is there, just lack of motivation?

China has numbers.

Russia has some/most of its Cold War stockpiles of equipment still, so I guess they'd tackle anything with brute force.

Australia, we just rock.

Edit: Forgot to put in US for obvious reasons, lots of people, does well etc etc.

Last edited by KuSTaV (2008-02-01 13:18:08)

noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
2008-02-01 14:15:56
Lai
Member
+186|6581
What about French feudal knights before the invention of longbow tactics: sheer invulnerability,..

Or Napoleonic Cuirassiers that actually killed their enemies rather than maiming them, by using their palasses to stab as well, instead of only to cut.
2008-02-01 14:24:07
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6921|Northern California
Based solely on movies, history/discovery channel portrayal, etc, I'm gonna have to guess the Greeks followed by the Romans.
2008-02-01 15:05:46
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6898

Aids wrote:

Several come to mind:
-IDF
-Vietcong
-SAS
IDF and SAS maybe, but Victor-Charlie was real disorganized and ill-equipped. The only reason they won was because there were so many of them and they were so spread out that the Americans couldn't fight them all.
2008-02-01 15:34:41
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7074

Magpie wrote:

Crusaders
they lost.
2008-02-02 02:53:54
Lai
Member
+186|6581

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Magpie wrote:

Crusaders
they lost.
So did Leonidas at Thermopylae,..
2008-02-02 02:57:59
SEREVENT
MASSIVE G STAR
+605|6537|Birmingham, UK
British armed forces, all branches in the 1800's. Britain had the biggest empire the world has ever seen.

But, then again, the Romans were some of the best fighters i've ever read about.
2008-02-02 11:19:51
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7074

Lai wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Magpie wrote:

Crusaders
they lost.
So did Leonidas at Thermopylae,..
the battle. not the war.  I must be wrong in thinking that all that blood shed to recapture the holy land was a success?   Real great army.  Look how christianity triumphs in the holy lands.  not a single muslim around.
2008-02-02 11:22:54
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7051|London, England
Mongols, where the fuck did they come from and how did they take over China, the Middle East, Central Asia and some of Europe.

In a relatively short time too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif/350px-Mongol_Empire_map.gif
2008-02-02 11:25:16
The_Mac
Member
+96|6655

senor_fulff wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

If the US special forces community is so worthless (and let's remember, there are many, many little bits to that community: the army has Rangers, Green Berets, SOAR, and Delta, the navy has UDT and the SEALS, the air scouts have PJ's, and the marines have recon), then why does the rest of the world want to come and cross-train with them so badly?
Two Words for ya....

TARGET. PRACTICE.
That made no sense whatsoever.
2008-02-02 11:28:47
HSG
Member
+23|6904|British Columbia, Canada

thtthht wrote:

USMC, u.s. army, navy, korean marines.
no.
2008-02-02 11:30:11
The_Mac
Member
+96|6655

Mek-Izzle wrote:

Mongols, where the fuck did they come from and how did they take over China, the Middle East, Central Asia and some of Europe.

In a relatively short time too.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … re_map.gif
Pretty good response, certainly better than the "omg Canada!" statements, and they certainly did change alot of the ways Europeans viewed themselves in their geographic location, but I think a better army still: The Huns.

The Huns indirectly caused the fall of the Roman Empire!

Even before they were located near the huge thing! They broke out of Eurasia in the 3rd century A.D. then they put pressure on the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Alans, Samartians, Burgundians, and all hell broke loose in the 4th! These Germanic tribes flooded into the Roman Empire (They didn't have a good enough immigration policy) and settled all over the place. Then the Huns themselves came, and the Romans + Barbarians had to form an army to stop them at the Catualanian fields.

Because of the Huns, the geo-socio-political terrain of Europe is what it is. Hell, there still is a province of Burgundy! (or was...I don't know if it still existed as the name post French incorporation).
2008-02-02 11:32:59
HSG
Member
+23|6904|British Columbia, Canada

HSG wrote:

thtthht wrote:

USMC, u.s. army, navy, korean marines.
no.
fixed
2008-02-02 12:13:21
messfeeder
Member
+31|6957|Gotham
Mongols. When they didn't have any food they would cut open a vein on their horses and drink the blood, then stitch it back up. That's resourceful!
2008-02-02 12:15:24
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7271|Cologne, Germany

as has been said before, each period in history has had its dominating empire / nation, and a corresponding military force. Comparing those really ain't that much useful, since they were all based on different tactics, weaponry, training, experience, etc...

The best combination of effectiveness, training, logistics and equipment in ancient times were probably the roman legions. Sparta doesn't count for me because they were considerably small and also didn't build an empire in the classical sense. Great warriors, maybe, but no nation-builders.
And in spite of their great reputation as fighters, Sparta was dominated by the great empires of their time.

In modern times, I'd say the prussians were pretty good, followed by the british infantry and the french ( 18th and early 19th century ).

As far as the 20th century is concerned, in the first half it was clearly us, the german army. The Wehrmacht defeated basically every european nation, and was only stopped because of a crazy leader ( Hitler ), the economic, logistic and military power of the US, and the fact that russia was willing to sacrifice millions of their own people. If it hadn't been for that, all of europe would be speaking german now.

The 20th century also marked a turning point because it was now painfully obvious that sheer manpower would not be enough to win the wars of the future.

Wars became more and more technological, with weapons that could kill hundreds, if not thousands of enemies with just the pressing of a button.
Logistics have also become more and more important, with todays armies not living off the land they fight on any more, but instead having to be supplied from hundreds or thousands of miles away.

That's why today, IMHO, the US Armed Forces are the most effective ( as far as conventional warfare is concerned ), because they have the technological and logistical capabilities to fight anyone, anywhere on the planet. No other nation today can rightfully claim that.

Then again, modern armies seem to have their problems with unconventional warfare, so "military power" is a relative term...
2008-02-02 12:22:30
jord
Member
+2,382|7108|The North, beyond the wall.

B.Schuss wrote:

As far as the 20th century is concerned, in the first half it was clearly us, the german army. The Wehrmacht defeated basically every european nation, and was only stopped because of a crazy leader ( Hitler ), the economic, logistic and military power of the US, and the fact that russia was willing to sacrifice millions of their own people. If it hadn't been for that, all of europe would be speaking german now.
Arguably Yes, but that's a hypothetical situation. Britain was still considered one of the power 3 back then. The amount of resources it would take to capture Britain, if it could be done would be huge. So we wouldn't be speaking German.
2008-02-02 12:46:58
Bell
Frosties > Cornflakes
+362|6979|UK

usmarine wrote:

French Foreign Legion

Why?

No camera's follow them.
Agreed, those boys are machines in every sence of the word

Martyn

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard