Modern History: Australian Army gets the Thumbs Up! (2 Viewers)

[The General]

I often frequent a website called Strategy Page located at http://www.strategypage.com/default.asp .

It has some really interesting information and statistics on the world's armed forces, their numbers, tanks and military vehicles, naval ships and air force capabilities as well as military preparedness.

Anyway I found this long list of nations and a brief wrap on their military situation on the following page: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

If you scroll down you will find the following.....

United States - With the decline of Russia’s military effectiveness, now the premier world military power.

Great Britain - The end of the Cold War brought budget cuts, but combat effectiveness was maintained. But there has also been a major decline in force levels.

Canada - Maintains nominal armed forces, used mainly for peacekeeping. Relies on U.S. for protection from any potential threats.

New Zealand - Steadily shrinking armed forces since end of the Cold War . No one in the area to use them on. Forces do a lot of peacekeeping.

Australia - An economic boom, and fears of Islamic radicalism, have led to more investment into the armed forces. Troops are well equipped and professional. Regarded by many as, at the individual troop level, the best force in the world.

Yes as a former Australian Regular Army soldier I admit to being biased but hey it's not my website. In fact I think it's an American one.

 

[lancer]

Sounds pretty accurate to me. Aussie infantry have always been the toughest guys on the block. -- lancer

 

[marco55]

I believe the Australians were considered the best Allied troops in WWI and WWII.
Mark

 

[Gazza]

I think the Aussies fought well - the rugged, tough, reputation was built on some real successes. But to say best in WWII...

Personally, I would want the Gurkhas by my side

I believe the Australians were considered the best Allied troops in WWI and WWII.
Mark

 

[OzDigger]

I think the Aussies fought well - the rugged, tough, reputation was built on some real successes. But to say best in WWII...

Personally, I would want the Gurkhas by my side

Ghurkas have a reputation for fanatical bravery like the Japanese had in WWII. However a group performance, especially when supported by a religious/martial culture, doesn't often translate to effective individual performance.

All together now: "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!" "Oi! Oi! Oi!"

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Canada - Maintains nominal armed forces, used mainly for peacekeeping. Relies on U.S. for protection from any potential threats.

Hmmm.... when was this analysis written - forty years ago? Traditionally this was true but times have changed.

3 points:

-Our current government has been shoveling truckloads of money into our military for several years now, for better or worse. It's now bigger and better equipped than it has been in probably 20 years.

-I actually wish Canada's soldiers were just peacekeepers, but that's far from the case. Canada's contribution to UN peacekeeping has been steadily declining for years, again for better or worse. In 1991 Canada contributed 10% of all UN peacekeepers, now it contributes less than 1%. For the last 8 years, the majority of our military personnel have been deployed in an active war zone, Afghanistan, shouldering more than our share there. Most of our infantry, artillery and even armor units have overseas field experience now, whatever that's worth in an unconventional action like Afghanistan.

-Every Western nation relies on the US for protection from "evildoers", including Australia. And the US in turn relies on us. That's what alliances are for. So I'm not sure what that statement is supposed to mean.

I don't doubt the world class nature of Aussie soldiers but I think whoever wrote that report fell back on some tired old stereotypes concerning Canada's forces, which makes me wonder about its accuracy for the other nations it analyzed as well. These "my nation is better than your nation" posts never lead to much good, but I had to point out those errors above.

*And before you guys think I'll stand up for Canada's army no matter what shape it's in, I'll never forget the flag bearers we had representing us at the 60th Anniversary D-Day celebrations. Many other nations had elite honour guards or paratroops representing them (all men), who marched by the assembled dignitaries with exacting precision. In contrast Canada's flag bearers (including one woman) almost casually strolled by, nearly smiling, their looser fitting uniforms the polar opposite of other nation's forces. It was a little embarrassing. But overall I'm not sure that proves a whole lot. While we certainly lack the flashy "elite" parade units of some other countries, I think the average soldier here is probably the match of any in the world. Again, times have changed since then - due to the mission in Afghanistan and a significant change in government attitude here, Canada's forces are very different than they were even 5 years ago. And if you think that's too short a time for a nation's armed forces to change, remember that between 1941 and 1943 the Soviet army changed radically in mindset, morale and effectiveness, at first collapsing before Germany and then being the one to teach it lessons in warfare.

Oh yeah, and we had the best troops in WW1 .

 

[Gazza]

Digger

Love you sense of humour !!!

Ghurkas have a reputation for fanatical bravery like the Japanese had in WWII. However a group performance, especially when supported by a religious/martial culture, doesn't often translate to effective individual performance.

Individual performance - how about 26 VC's !!! You ever heard of a guy called Tenzing (first guy to really climb Himilaya's)

All together now: "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!" "Oi! Oi! Oi!" .

Not exactly scarey is it .... compared to all together now: "Gurkha Ho !!!"

 

[Louis Badolato]

Ghurkas have a reputation for fanatical bravery like the Japanese had in WWII. However a group performance, especially when supported by a religious/martial culture, doesn't often translate to effective individual performance.

All together now: "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!" "Oi! Oi! Oi!"

Oz,

I admire the ANZAC forces, and think they were and are among the very best troops of all time. That being said, I would have to disagree with your assessment of the Ghurkas in certain respects. The Ghurkas are undoubtedly among the bravest, as you point out, but they are equally famous for their dedication, stamina and toughness. According to the book "The Ghurkas" by historian Byron Farwell, during the funeral of Queen Victoria, certain regiments, including one Ghurka regiment, were each supposed to stand honor guard for 24 straight hours. The Ghurka regiment, not realizing this, had only sent enough to stand post once, without sufficient troops for changing the guard throughout the 24 hour period. So that one set of Ghurkas stood guard for 24 straight hours, without rest. They are also absolutely leathal hand to hand fighters, despite being an average of about 5 foot two inches tall, and the Waffen SS troops in Italy were terrified of them.

If my @ss was on the line, and I could choose a platoon of soldiers to lead into harms way, I would definitely choose troops from the Second Sirmoor Ghurka Rifles. Just for the record, my second choice would be Aussie SAS, my third Choice would be U.S. Delta Force, and my fourth choice would be British SAS troops seconded from a Highland Regiment.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Digger

Love you sense of humour !!!



Individual performance - how about 26 VC's !!! You ever heard of a guy called Tenzing (first guy to really climb Himilaya's)



If it was hiking up the tallest mountain in the world? I think they would be world champions. Also as a poor country - can not imagine they have much monet to spend on sports



Not exactly scarey is it .... compared to all together now: "Gurkha Ho !!!"



A Khukhuri knife would make short work of a six foot fence !!! And they would have a sweet smile as they did it....

That's a more accurate assessment of Ghurkas in my opinion. But I will add one more annectdote from Byron Farwell's book: A Ghurka sowar who returned from being sent home on leave to Nepal brought back a snow leopard pelt. His Lieutenant asked him how he got it, and he said that he accidentally surprised the the snow leopard with a kill, and it uncharacteristically attacked him, so he killed it. The officer said how in the world did you kill the beast? The Ghurka said, once I broke the scabbard of my kukri (what we refer to as a Ghurka knife) over its skull, it was simple. These are tough people.

 

[Gazza]

Louis

I would opt for the Spartans, Companions, Pratorean Guard and I think the Masi are pretty good - anyone who hunts lions with a little spear is pretty tough in my book (plus they can track)

Cheers

Oz,
If my @ss was on the line, and I could choose a platoon of soldiers to lead into harms way, I would definitely choose troops from the Second Sirmoor Ghurka Rifles. Just for the record, my second choice would be Aussie SAS, my third Choice would be U.S. Delta Force, and my fourth choice would be British SAS troops seconded from a Highland Regiment.

 

[1879fanatic]

Oz,

I admire the ANZAC forces, and think they were and are among the very best troops of all time. That being said, I would have to disagree with your assessment of the Ghurkas in certain respects. The Ghurkas are undoubtedly among the bravest, as you point out, but they are equally famous for their dedication, stamina and toughness. According to the book "The Ghurkas" by historian Byron Farwell, during the funeral of Queen Victoria, certain regiments, including one Ghurka regiment, were each supposed to stand honor guard for 24 straight hours. The Ghurka regiment, not realizing this, had only sent enough to stand post once, without sufficient troops for changing the guard throughout the 24 hour period. So that one set of Ghurkas stood guard for 24 straight hours, without rest. They are also absolutely leathal hand to hand fighters, despite being an average of about 5 foot two inches tall, and the Waffen SS troops in Italy were terrified of them.

If my @ss was on the line, and I could choose a platoon of soldiers to lead into harms way, I would definitely choose troops from the Second Sirmoor Ghurka Rifles. Just for the record, my second choice would be Aussie SAS, my third Choice would be U.S. Delta Force, and my fourth choice would be British SAS troops seconded from a Highland Regiment.

Now Louis,
Did ya be fergettin' the IDF specials?
I'd move them into first, British Air 2nd , and Force Recon/AusSAS tied for 3.
Mike

 

[lancer]

It would be hard to leave the mountain fighters of Afghanistan off a "best of" list. They have chased everyone out of their country,ie. the British empire, the U.S.S.R., and now the U.S. is having fits there. -- lancer

 

[vandilay]

I think all nations have good ,bad and everything in between
When it comes to soldiers.
From a NZ perspective the Maori Battalion have a bit of a
Legendary status here [I,ve read rommel rated them the best
Infantry he come up against] does this make them the best
In ww2 or even NZ forces , I don’t think so.
But they where definetly closer to the good side of the leger.

Having just finished reading “Devils on horses” about New Zealands
Mounted rifleman in WW1 I thought the author summed up quite
Well with this paragraph which could apply to more than just kiwis

Taken as whole , New Zealands mounted rifleman were not natural
Soldiers or heroes,but nor were they victims or villians.The majority
Were brave hardworking soldiers although some of them never enjoyed
Military life nor longed for combat.
Some men complained to anyone who would listen,did what they could
To avoid work,commited crimes got drunk and shied away from danger.
This became more prevalent as the war dragged on , with veterans becoming
Jaded and as unwilling conscripts began to join the brigade.

Whether courageous fighters or idle shirkers, very few of the mounted rifleman had Any wish to stay in the army for a single day longer than was necessary.By nov 1918 Their job was done and they where more than ready to shed their uniforms and get Back to their real lives in New Zealand.Brigadier General Meldrum summed them
Up well when he wrote.
”They were wonderful fighters ,but they were not great talkers,and they didn’t want any heroics about their work.What they did was part of a day,s work to be got through and done well, but that was enough.”

 

[1879fanatic]

I think all nations have good ,bad and everything in between
When it comes to soldiers.
From a NZ perspective the Maori Battalion have a bit of a
Legendary status here [I,ve read rommel rated them the best
Infantry he come up against] does this make them the best
In ww2 or even NZ forces , I don’t think so.
But they where definetly closer to the good side of the leger.

Having just finished reading “Devils on horses” about New Zealands
Mounted rifleman in WW1 I thought the author summed up quite
Well with this paragraph which could apply to more than just kiwis

Taken as whole , New Zealands mounted rifleman were not natural
Soldiers or heroes,but nor were they victims or villians.The majority
Were brave hardworking soldiers although some of them never enjoyed
Military life nor longed for combat.
Some men complained to anyone who would listen,did what they could
To avoid work,commited crimes got drunk and shied away from danger.
This became more prevalent as the war dragged on , with veterans becoming
Jaded and as unwilling conscripts began to join the brigade.

Whether courageous fighters or idle shirkers, very few of the mounted rifleman had Any wish to stay in the army for a single day longer than was necessary.By nov 1918 Their job was done and they where more than ready to shed their uniforms and get Back to their real lives in New Zealand.Brigadier General Meldrum summed them
Up well when he wrote.
”They were wonderful fighters ,but they were not great talkers,and they didn’t want any heroics about their work.What they did was part of a day,s work to be got through and done well, but that was enough.”

I think you just described for us The Boers, American Indians, Colonials, Afghanis, and a lot of others as they fought for something dear-Their place on earth.Things change when the fight is about what you're standing on.
Mike

 

[Currahee Chris]

If my @ss was on the line, and I could choose a platoon of soldiers to lead into harms way, I would definitely choose troops from the Second Sirmoor Ghurka Rifles. Just for the record, my second choice would be Aussie SAS, my third Choice would be U.S. Delta Force, and my fourth choice would be British SAS troops seconded from a Highland Regiment.

Give me a break- good to see you think so highly of your own countrymen to rate them third place when tasked with the challenge of covering your six.

And for what it's worth, I'll take all bets any operators from any of those units would want you a good six grid squares from wherever their AO may be.

Have a good time at the Symposium.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Now Louis,
Did ya be fergettin' the IDF specials?
I'd move them into first, British Air 2nd , and Force Recon/AusSAS tied for 3.
Mike

IDF are some bad **** no doubt- not sure if they would be versatile enough to compete with the other elites we have listed though- SFO-D, SAS, etc- given adequate time to overcome the learning curve though, they'd be up to it, imo.

 

[1879fanatic]

IDF are some bad **** no doubt- not sure if they would be versatile enough to compete with the other elites we have listed though- SFO-D, SAS, etc- given adequate time to overcome the learning curve though, they'd be up to it, imo.

Just versatile enough to follow or get out of the way! I'd probably opt for an A team behind, if they'd follw, instead of showing off the beards!
Mike

 

[Currahee Chris]

It would be hard to leave the mountain fighters of Afghanistan off a "best of" list. They have chased everyone out of their country,ie. the British empire, the U.S.S.R., and now the U.S. is having fits there. -- lancer

No, not really. Just because they can fight on their own turf doesn't make them flexible enough to respond to global crisis like most super power units. I really couldn't imagine what a nightmare they would have while trying to deploy anywhere globally on 24 hours notice like most high speed American units do.

While I believe they are tough and rank as some of the most superior mountain warriors on the planet- if tasked with say urban pacification in the Watts district of LA or training Iraqi insurgents in downtown Baghdad I believe they would be as green as anyone else and would get their lunch handed to them. Their success record is due to the fact that the fight has always come to them. They are the right warriors in their ideal conditions and that has made them terribly challenging.

Now, that being said, one US Special Forces group did in 01-02 what it took the Soviet army eight years to nominally achieve. Part of their amazing track record in the 80's was do to superior leadership through Masoud.

Cheers
CC

 

[Currahee Chris]

Just versatile enough to follow or get out of the way! I'd probably opt for an A team behind, if they'd follw, instead of showing off the beards!
Mike

- didn't you get the memo- the new CIB is facial hair encrusted.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Hey General:

Thanks for your service- no doubt the Australian Army is better off for your service.

I've got nothing but love for all the units you mentioned. The Aussies have proven their bravery in spades and have laid the groundwork for SF and irregular fighting for the entire Western world. They are amazing.

The Brits- well, what can you say- simply the finest military tradition in the world- it's genetic that they kick as$

The Canadians- CS made some good points. Currently, I believe a pair of Canadian sniper teams have the world's number 1 and number 2 positions for long range kills- truly amazing talent there.

Then there is the US- I see us as the drunken obnoxious uncle that shows up sometimes when he's not wanted but stilll may be needed- the problem with that Uncle- he's got the biggest beatstick on the block. I have seen some interesting studies regarding American and British troops being a more technically driven force whereas the Aussies and Canadians are a bit more rugged and outdoors oriented- different societal values I suppose.

Some other units I believe deserve mention:

1.) China- sweet Jesus- they are scary
2.) The African Union- I think if they can get some solid leadership and some first class training, they could be a major player- still decades away though, at best.
3.) Future Iraqi Army- same reasoning as 2 above- they need some stability there and some stable leadership but the rank and file Iraqi isn't one to scoff at. A lot of reports I have heard ring the same- quick to engage but quick to split once the lead starts to fly- discipline will square that away- still gotta give them their props- any force that can take a stand against Abrams, Bradleys and Apache HK teams have some iron in their bellies- glad that was a gut check I didn't have to make.
4.) South African army- strong strong force, very capable and competent.
5.) The Polish Army- what they are doing in Afghanistan is amazing. Their support of the US will pay huge rewards for them in the decades to come.
6.) The IDF- mixed opinion on them discipline wise but otherwise world class.

Some other members have made mention of irregular forces- Gurkhas, Afghanis, etc- all very very competent in their environments. Would think it appropriate to add the Vietnamese "Mountainyards" to that list as well.

STANDS ALONE!!
CC