Efficient armed forces!

I found something interesting:Not only Irakians but also Saudi,Libian,North African,Kuwaiti and also two Jordanian armored brigade participated.
The echivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel's borders.
At the Golan heights 180 Israeli tanks faced 1400 syrian.

...and trashed them due to reactive armour.....

In the poll there are countries with different military potential and different doctrines. For instance the Israel Army is designed to fight the Arabs and terrorism and they are good at it. The US army is supposed to do something else and they have probably 10 times more solders than the British. Probably they could be compared in terms of number of solders with China, Russia and North Koreea. I think they are the most efficient in this group (it is not that hard to be). I don’t think the Israel army would do better if they were supposed to do the job the Americans are doing.

QUOTE

In the poll there are countries with different military potential and different doctrines. For instance the Israel Army is designed to fight the Arabs and terrorism and they are good at it. The US army is supposed to do something else and they have probably 10 times more solders than the British. Probably they could be compared in terms of number of solders with China, Russia and North Koreea. I think they are the most efficient in this group (it is not that hard to be). I don’t think the Israel army would do better if they were supposed to do the job the Americans are doing.

So why haven't you vote for US. And then US comepered with China. China is suposed to have over 1 million soldiers in our days - (and that's about the number China used in the Koreean war) and they want to cut there numbers for a more efficient army. Further more, during the first Gulf War, Irak had the fourth largest army on the globe and let's face it that even the Israeli would have meangeled them. Nobody thinks this days like the russians in WW2. And Israel is doing better the job, they let the US to take care of the problem.

My apologies for the technical problem. The first part of my privios post is actualy the quote.

QUOTE

My apologies for the technical problem. The first part of my privios post is actualy the quote.

You can edit your post and correct the problem. There is an "Edit" button in the top right corner.

Let us return to the language of 88mm's original question: "most efficient".

"Efficient" usually means something like "most output" (combat power, I would say) for "least input" (money, material resources, manpower). The question was not "who has the most total combat power" (almost meaningless, if nuclear weapons are factored in) or "who has the greatest ability to project this power around the world". It certainly was not "who has the best equipment" -- for that matter, if having the best tank made you invincible the Soviets would have been in Berlin for Christmas 1941, not fighting at the gates of Moscow.

That said, my vote goes to the Israelis, for the reasons others have mentioned: a highly militarized state, powerful incentives (victory or death, anyone?), a very focused mission (you don't see Israeli troops doing "nation-building" anywhere, do you?). And a steady supply of American $$$, technology, hardware and political cover in the UN Security Council do not hurt either. (On second thought, maybe these should count as inputs, thus reducing their efficiency )

I voted the UK, simply because I know something about them (I'm serving for the next 10 months-then I retire after 28 years service!!)
The reason I voted UK is not because it has good weaponry - these things can always be overcome! It's because:
a. It's a completely volunteer force with all the advantages that brings (morale, the desire to serve and a willingness to serve in s***th***s and withstand conditions a conscript force wouldn't in this day and age.)
b. It's an extremely versatile set of forces with the army, navy and RAF co-operating very closely - RAF aircraft on Naval ships is a good example.
c. Experience levels are high because of a good retention rate, people stay in longer so more experience is passed on.
d. Proven ability - both in combat and peacekeeping roles. Right or wrong we were the first to back the US after 9/11 (wrong in my opinion) and to actually deploy. Our peacekeeping record is probably the best in the world, Northern Ireland 1969-2000(ish), Balkans, currently the Basra area of Iraq among others. Believe me , most of these places are dumps(except Balkans) to the average squaddie but we still go there..fairly happily I might add. We also work very closely with civilian authorities in times of strife, that's basically beacause we ARE civilians!

Now I understand that the Americans are more powerful, better armed, look nastier (and administered far worse), maybe that makes them better? Israelis are also very tough but not versatile, they make war only. Not a bad thing for an army you might say but they are not deployable. ie they have no experience outside Israel (except for the obvious Mossad forays). THEIR best point is that they are also (well trained) civilians.

I'm afraid I know little about the other nations but you have my 2p worth anyway.
All the best to you.

I give my vote to UK armed force because had superior equipment, has new things to come into service in near future, old tradition (to keep), excelent results.
Second place in my top is shared within Israel and Sweden for clear reasons....

Iama

But why USA had so little votes on this poll?

Iama

I think USA has few votes for several reasons:

1. The reason I described in my earlier post: the USA military is not particularly efficient. Yes, it has lots of combat power, and a global reach, but it requires lots of resources to create and sustain this power ($$$, technology and research, manpower too).

2. More diverse missions. The big winner is Israel, which has a very focused mission: deter attacks on Israel by having the ability to quickly destroy any realistic combination of opponents. Peacekeeping? Not really. Nation building. Oh my God no. Coalition warfare (NATO, UN missions)? No. Project power globally? No. Yes, the UK, in second place, does take on a very diverse set of missions as "olderM1" noted. But it still is a smaller set than the USA. And most of what the UK does, they do in a smaller way (for example, their Trident SSBN's, compared to the US strategic nuclear force, with SSBN's, strategic bombers, and ICBMs.)

3. Oh, and there are some people out there who just don't like the US, and never want them to win anything, even polls on worldwar2.ro. (Yeah, shocking I know )

My vote went to Israel because they have one of the best weapons available today: Terrorist fighters and the state and money to support them.

HONOR ET PATRIA

Ml. B.

What?

You think terrorists are payed by the Israely gov. ? Is true, this guys keep the Israely Army well trained (both govern and terrorists)...

Iama

I voted the UK, they along maybe Isreal have man for man the best trained, best armed forces on Earth.